Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: wilowisp@aol.com (WilOWisp) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: OBE and Time travel Lines: 7 Message-ID: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 26 May 1998 13:05:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Is it possible to time travel using OBE? In OBE if you think about going someplace you are instantly there,Right? So I was wondering with that ability (if that ability is there) if someone could travel to their own past to a certain point and enter their own body? Or would the one traveling back just be a tiny voice, only a passing thought in the past one's mind that is ignored? and How could I get started in OBE? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!boris.eden.com!not-for-mail From: Kevin Colquitt Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:14:09 -0500 Organization: AMICI Online Lines: 42 Message-ID: <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.81.232.134 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i686) WilOWisp wrote: > Is it possible to time travel using OBE? > Yes... at least, I believe it is possible to Time Travel. But in order to "fully" taken advantage of such a "skill".. your concepts of Time and Space would have to change. For example... when the average person thinks of the past or of the future, he or she will probably be thinking in linear terms... this may limit your experience. There is a possibility that time is far more flexible than we get it credit. There are times when it may appear to slow down and there are times when you look at your watch wondering were all your time went. If you ever catch yourself thinking "man time flies" Try to explore (mentally) this sensation. The experience would be purely psychological... of course. But if it is your goal to Time Travel then I think you should practice this technique. > In OBE if you think about going someplace you are instantly there,Right? > That's right.... Physically, when you walk to point A to B you don't thinking about the mechanics of how you got there. You simply have an intent and you let the pieces fall into place. The same thing can happen in an out of body state. > So I was wondering with that ability (if that ability is there) if someone > could travel to their own past to a certain point and enter their own body? > Or would the one traveling back just be a tiny voice, only a passing thought > in the past one's mind that is ignored? > I don't know about entering the past life body.... but prehaps that individual could hear that voice if the conditions are right. > and How could I get started in OBE? Practice... and maybe a change in your usually habits of thinking. Studying your dreams maybe the best place to start. Kevin ###### From: striker@zip.com.au (Peter Bennett) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 03:56:59 GMT Organization: The Zipsters Lines: 64 Message-ID: <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.62.148.174 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!calwebnntp!news.syd.fl.net.au!newsfeed.zip.com.au!the-fly.zip.com.au!not-for-mail Hello, I'm not an expert on time travel. If you went back to do something to yourself in the past, wouldn't it change the present? And if it doesn't change the present, where did the change go? Or how do we know we aren't affected by the change already? Would there be a way to verify if you contacted yourself in the past? The future must already have occured at the time you went back to contact yourself. Regards Peter On Tue, 26 May 1998 23:14:09 -0500, Kevin Colquitt wrote: >WilOWisp wrote: > >> Is it possible to time travel using OBE? >> > >Yes... at least, I believe it is possible to Time Travel. But in order to >"fully" taken advantage of such a "skill".. your concepts of Time and Space >would have to change. For example... when the average person thinks of the past >or of the future, he or she will probably be thinking in linear terms... this >may limit your experience. There is a possibility that time is far more flexible >than we get it credit. There are times when it may appear to slow down and there >are times when you look at your watch wondering were all your time went. If you >ever catch yourself thinking "man time flies" Try to explore (mentally) this >sensation. The experience would be purely psychological... of course. But if it >is your goal to Time Travel then I think you should practice this technique. > >> In OBE if you think about going someplace you are instantly there,Right? >> > >That's right.... Physically, when you walk to point A to B you don't thinking >about the mechanics of how you got there. You simply have an intent and you let >the pieces fall into place. The same thing can happen in an out of body state. > >> So I was wondering with that ability (if that ability is there) if someone >> could travel to their own past to a certain point and enter their own body? > >> Or would the one traveling back just be a tiny voice, only a passing thought > >> in the past one's mind that is ignored? >> > >I don't know about entering the past life body.... but prehaps that individual >could hear that voice if the conditions are right. > >> and How could I get started in OBE? > >Practice... and maybe a change in your usually habits of thinking. Studying >your dreams maybe the best place to start. > > >Kevin > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.186.110.126!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!boris.eden.com!not-for-mail From: Kevin Colquitt Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 14:16:51 -0500 Organization: AMICI Online Lines: 35 Message-ID: <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.81.233.43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i686) When you asked the questions below... I get the impression that you think that all events in both past, present and future are laid in some sequential time line. This maybe true to some extent but (I was trying to hint :) ) there is a level consciousness (or a particular peak in consciousness) where you could experience time in different ways. In this actuality, events in past, present and future could co-exists. The rules would then change for the individual who managed to achieve this state. Not only would he see the past, present and future that he knows but also probable pasts, presents and futures. Once upon a time people believed the world was flat. But of course this wasn't the case. The same is of Time and Space. Kevin Peter Bennett wrote: > Hello, > > I'm not an expert on time travel. > > If you went back to do something to yourself in the past, wouldn't it > change the present? And if it doesn't change the present, where did > the change go? Or how do we know we aren't affected by the change > already? > > Would there be a way to verify if you contacted yourself in the past? > > The future must already have occured at the time you went back to > contact yourself. > > Regards > Peter ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!europa.clark.net!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!dragon.sk.sympatico.ca!news From: Wells Family Fun Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:07:14 -0600 Organization: Toe Goblins, Inc. Lines: 74 Message-ID: <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> Reply-To: wellsdsp@sk.sympatico.ca NNTP-Posting-Host: socata17.sk.sympatico.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Hmmmm.... I've thought long and hard on this subject oftimes, and here's my opinion. Bear with me if I get too philosophical. :-) Time Travel is, essentially, impossible for the three-dimensional creatures that we are. Trying to move in time would like a side-scrolling video game character trying to move "out" of the screen, towards the user. It can't be by done by us. Now, however, there is a viable argument, and that is, time has actually been slowed by supersonic aircraft. For anyone who doesn't know of this experiment, I'll describe what I remember of it: Two atomic clocks where synchronized, then one of the clocks was set in a supersonic airplane and flown around the world (?) really really fast. The other clock stayed on the ground, and when the plane landed and they compared the two clocks, the terrestrial clock was a few thousandths of a second faster or something like that. So, this poses the argument that maybe three-dimensional beings such as ourselves can, if not exactly move through time, at least step "outside" of time. Now, let's say that time travel is, with certainty possible. It would still be impossible to change the past. For our first example, let's say I went back in time and released a virus at the dawn of man that wiped out the human race. No more people. Therefore, man could not have evolved to point of being capable of time travel. Therefore, I could not have travelled back in time and changed the past. Therefore, I did nothing. O'kay, now let's discuss changing something more feasible, like one's own past, such as atoning for past mistakes or making better choices or some such thing. As long as one's actions in the past didn't effect time travel capabilities in the future, such an idea should be possible. For my next example, let's say I went back in time and helped Hitler win WWII. Not that I'm a Nazi or anything, but just for use of a world-wide situation. How I helped him is unimportant. What is important is the fact that as soon as I changed the past by guaranteeing Hitler's victory, I would never remember changing the past. Not a single human being on the planet would have the slightest inkling that in another reality, Hitler didn't win. I would have grown up in a world ruled by Nazis, and would never have know anything different. This is another argument against time travel, although in a completely different way. How do we know people aren't changing the past every day? As to how OBE's fit into this, I haven't got a clue. :-) Thanx for listening to my opinion. Pick it apart if you like, I'm always in the mood for philosophy. :-) Miragio Kevin Colquitt wrote: > When you asked the questions below... I get the impression that you think that all > events in both past, present and future are laid in some sequential time line. > This maybe true to some extent but (I was trying to hint :) ) there is a level > consciousness (or a particular peak in consciousness) where you could experience > time in different ways. In this actuality, events in past, present and future could > co-exists. The rules would then change for the individual who managed to achieve > this state. Not only would he see the past, present and future that he knows but > also probable pasts, presents and futures. > > Once upon a time people believed the world was flat. But of course this wasn't the > case. The same is of Time and Space. > > Kevin > Peter Bennett wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I'm not an expert on time travel. > > > > If you went back to do something to yourself in the past, wouldn't it > > change the present? And if it doesn't change the present, where did > > the change go? Or how do we know we aren't affected by the change > > already? > > > > Would there be a way to verify if you contacted yourself in the past? > > > > The future must already have occured at the time you went back to > > contact yourself. > > > > Regards > > Peter ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:11:09 +0200 Lines: 106 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p15.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p15.telia.com Message-ID: <356c2cd2.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t8o204p15.telia.com That question has also caught my attention. If it is possible to travel in the past the it should also be possible to change it. So if I would travel to the past and make some major changes then I would also change the present. Think I will have to do some testing on this. First I would find a place on this earth, then go back in time and change it. If I would check out the place in the present again and find that the place have been changed then the would suggest that I may change the past and the present. Once that is figured out and I conclude that I may change the past, then I think I will keep it my secret. Don't want anyone to change my past. I like things the way they are. But I could still travel in the past just as an observer. Peter Bennett wrote in message <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au>... >Hello, > >I'm not an expert on time travel. > >If you went back to do something to yourself in the past, wouldn't it >change the present? And if it doesn't change the present, where did >the change go? Or how do we know we aren't affected by the change >already? > >Would there be a way to verify if you contacted yourself in the past? > >The future must already have occurred at the time you went back to >contact yourself. > >Regards >Peter > > >On Tue, 26 May 1998 23:14:09 -0500, Kevin Colquitt >wrote: > >>WilOWisp wrote: >> >>> Is it possible to time travel using OBE? >>> >> >>Yes... at least, I believe it is possible to Time Travel. But in order to >>"fully" taken advantage of such a "skill".. your concepts of Time and Space >>would have to change. For example... when the average person thinks of the past >>or of the future, he or she will probably be thinking in linear terms... this >>may limit your experience. There is a possibility that time is far more flexible >>than we get it credit. There are times when it may appear to slow down and there >>are times when you look at your watch wondering were all your time went. If you >>ever catch yourself thinking "man time flies" Try to explore (mentally) this >>sensation. The experience would be purely psychological... of course. But if it >>is your goal to Time Travel then I think you should practice this technique. >> >>> In OBE if you think about going someplace you are instantly there,Right? >>> >> >>That's right.... Physically, when you walk to point A to B you don't thinking >>about the mechanics of how you got there. You simply have an intent and you let >>the pieces fall into place. The same thing can happen in an out of body state. >> >>> So I was wondering with that ability (if that ability is there) if someone >>> could travel to their own past to a certain point and enter their own body? >> >>> Or would the one traveling back just be a tiny voice, only a passing thought >> >>> in the past one's mind that is ignored? >>> >> >>I don't know about entering the past life body.... but perhaps that individual >>could hear that voice if the conditions are right. >> >>> and How could I get started in OBE? >> >>Practice... and maybe a change in your usually habits of thinking. Studying >>your dreams maybe the best place to start. >> >> >>Kevin >> > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!boris.eden.com!not-for-mail From: Kevin Colquitt Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:37:14 -0500 Organization: AMICI Online Lines: 20 Message-ID: <356CE9FA.812765B0@eden.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.81.232.127 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i686) Well first... I was trying to express a different way of "thinking when considering Time Travel as a goal. In you comments below... you bring up the classic paradox which scientists... quantum physicists have debated for a long time. But what happens when you begin entering theories of probable realities into the equation? This would then change the "rules". For example, with a time machine, you could go back into the past and kill yourself at age 12. The act from that moment on would then splinter from the past you knew as child. Also I believe you could accomplish this act of "suicide" without effecting the present individual self that you know yourself to be. You would have only killed a probable version of yourself (one of possible infinite versions). The same could be true for any particular event. Kevin ###### From: striker@zip.com.au (Peter Bennett) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 06:19:28 GMT Organization: The Zipsters Lines: 121 Message-ID: <356d0194.1753920@news.zip.com.au> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356c2cd2.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.62.148.200 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!windy.ourworld.net!news.syd.fl.net.au!newsfeed.zip.com.au!the-fly.zip.com.au!not-for-mail Please don't take what I say as being fact as I know about as much as (or as little as) anyone about time travel. If you went back and changed your past which changes the future, you wouldn't notice any change because you have nothing to compare it to. That in itself opens up a lot of questions. Regards Peter On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:11:09 +0200, "Lars Rune Foleide" wrote: >That question has also caught my attention. > >If it is possible to travel in the past the it should also be possible to >change it. > >So if I would travel to the past and make some major changes then I would >also >change the present. Think I will have to do some testing on this. >First I would find a place on this earth, then go back in time and change >it. >If I would check out the place in the present again and find that the place >have >been changed then the would suggest that I may change the past and the >present. > >Once that is figured out and I conclude that I may change the past, then I >think I will >keep it my secret. Don't want anyone to change my past. I like things the >way they are. >But I could still travel in the past just as an observer. > >Peter Bennett wrote in message <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au>... >>Hello, >> >>I'm not an expert on time travel. >> >>If you went back to do something to yourself in the past, wouldn't it >>change the present? And if it doesn't change the present, where did >>the change go? Or how do we know we aren't affected by the change >>already? >> >>Would there be a way to verify if you contacted yourself in the past? >> >>The future must already have occurred at the time you went back to >>contact yourself. >> >>Regards >>Peter >> >> >>On Tue, 26 May 1998 23:14:09 -0500, Kevin Colquitt >>wrote: >> >>>WilOWisp wrote: >>> >>>> Is it possible to time travel using OBE? >>>> >>> >>>Yes... at least, I believe it is possible to Time Travel. But in order to >>>"fully" taken advantage of such a "skill".. your concepts of Time and >Space >>>would have to change. For example... when the average person thinks of >the past >>>or of the future, he or she will probably be thinking in linear terms... >this >>>may limit your experience. There is a possibility that time is far more >flexible >>>than we get it credit. There are times when it may appear to slow down and >there >>>are times when you look at your watch wondering were all your time went. >If you >>>ever catch yourself thinking "man time flies" Try to explore (mentally) >this >>>sensation. The experience would be purely psychological... of course. But >if it >>>is your goal to Time Travel then I think you should practice this >technique. >>> >>>> In OBE if you think about going someplace you are instantly >there,Right? >>>> >>> >>>That's right.... Physically, when you walk to point A to B you don't >thinking >>>about the mechanics of how you got there. You simply have an intent and >you let >>>the pieces fall into place. The same thing can happen in an out of body >state. >>> >>>> So I was wondering with that ability (if that ability is there) if >someone >>>> could travel to their own past to a certain point and enter their own >body? >>> >>>> Or would the one traveling back just be a tiny voice, only a passing >thought >>> >>>> in the past one's mind that is ignored? >>>> >>> >>>I don't know about entering the past life body.... but perhaps that >individual >>>could hear that voice if the conditions are right. >>> >>>> and How could I get started in OBE? >>> >>>Practice... and maybe a change in your usually habits of thinking. >Studying >>>your dreams maybe the best place to start. >>> >>> >>>Kevin >>> >> > > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!windy.ourworld.net!newsfeed.zip.com.au!the-fly.zip.com.au!not-for-mail From: striker@zip.com.au (Peter Bennett) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 06:22:41 GMT Organization: The Zipsters Lines: 86 Message-ID: <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.62.148.200 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Hello, regarding the Atomic Clock experiment. I wonder if there has been any recent reports on that experiment. Knowing what I know about how Atomic Clocks work, the few thousandths of a second error could have occured during acceleration. However, if they were synchronised once the aircraft was up to speed, then that would be a different story. On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:07:14 -0600, Wells Family Fun wrote: >Hmmmm.... I've thought long and hard on this subject oftimes, and here's my opinion. >Bear with me if I get too philosophical. :-) >Time Travel is, essentially, impossible for the three-dimensional creatures that we >are. Trying to move in time would like a side-scrolling video game character trying to >move "out" of the screen, towards the user. It can't be by done by us. >Now, however, there is a viable argument, and that is, time has actually been slowed by >supersonic aircraft. For anyone who doesn't know of this experiment, I'll describe >what I remember of it: Two atomic clocks where synchronized, then one of the clocks >was set in a supersonic airplane and flown around the world (?) really really fast. >The other clock stayed on the ground, and when the plane landed and they compared the >two clocks, the terrestrial clock was a few thousandths of a second faster or something >like that. So, this poses the argument that maybe three-dimensional beings such as >ourselves can, if not exactly move through time, at least step "outside" of time. >Now, let's say that time travel is, with certainty possible. It would still be >impossible to change the past. For our first example, let's say I went back in time >and released a virus at the dawn of man that wiped out the human race. No more >people. Therefore, man could not have evolved to point of being capable of time >travel. Therefore, I could not have travelled back in time and changed the past. >Therefore, I did nothing. O'kay, now let's discuss changing something more feasible, >like one's own past, such as atoning for past mistakes or making better choices or some >such thing. As long as one's actions in the past didn't effect time travel >capabilities in the future, such an idea should be possible. For my next example, >let's say I went back in time and helped Hitler win WWII. Not that I'm a Nazi or >anything, but just for use of a world-wide situation. How I helped him is >unimportant. What is important is the fact that as soon as I changed the past by >guaranteeing Hitler's victory, I would never remember changing the past. Not a single >human being on the planet would have the slightest inkling that in another reality, >Hitler didn't win. I would have grown up in a world ruled by Nazis, and would never >have know anything different. This is another argument against time travel, although >in a completely different way. How do we know people aren't changing the past every >day? > As to how OBE's fit into this, I haven't got a clue. :-) > >Thanx for listening to my opinion. Pick it apart if you like, I'm always in the mood >for philosophy. :-) > >Miragio > >Kevin Colquitt wrote: > >> When you asked the questions below... I get the impression that you think that all >> events in both past, present and future are laid in some sequential time line. >> This maybe true to some extent but (I was trying to hint :) ) there is a level >> consciousness (or a particular peak in consciousness) where you could experience >> time in different ways. In this actuality, events in past, present and future could >> co-exists. The rules would then change for the individual who managed to achieve >> this state. Not only would he see the past, present and future that he knows but >> also probable pasts, presents and futures. >> >> Once upon a time people believed the world was flat. But of course this wasn't the >> case. The same is of Time and Space. >> >> Kevin >> Peter Bennett wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'm not an expert on time travel. >> > >> > If you went back to do something to yourself in the past, wouldn't it >> > change the present? And if it doesn't change the present, where did >> > the change go? Or how do we know we aren't affected by the change >> > already? >> > >> > Would there be a way to verify if you contacted yourself in the past? >> > >> > The future must already have occured at the time you went back to >> > contact yourself. >> > >> > Regards >> > Peter > > > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!dragon.sk.sympatico.ca!news From: Wells Family Fun Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 19:03:32 -0600 Organization: Toe Goblins, Inc. Lines: 70 Message-ID: <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> Reply-To: wellsdsp@sk.sympatico.ca NNTP-Posting-Host: fiddler22.sk.sympatico.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Hmmm.... I see. :-) Arthur Engh wrote: > I've been following this thread for a while and I just thought I'd put > in my two cents worth. I have always been under the impression that > time is a by-product of our physical universe and not any kind of > universal constant. > > Consider this: If a man walks along a road at a certain pace and his > destination lies behind a hill in front of him he might be able to > calculate the distance between him and his destination and say that he > will see his destination in exactly x amount of minutes after having > walked y amount of miles. So he would indirectly be using time to > measure distance. This would make sense to him, while another man in > an airplane would see no sense in this at all as he is watching the > man and his destination at the same time and therefore didn't need any > time reference. > > And what if you have only two dimensions to work with, just length and > breadth? If a ball was dropped onto such a plain any inhabitants would > first see a point, a widening and then a shortening line and then a > point again and since they had no reference to the third dimension > they would record the size of the ball as the time it took for the > phenomena to appear and disappear again. The bigger ball the longer > time. > > As the "flatlanders" use one concept, time, to explain another > concept, size/height, which they are not familiar with, I believe we > are also falling into the same trap. I wonder what our equivalent of > height is? > > It seems to me that since time is a result of the physical universe if > you move outside this universe the concept of time ceases to have > meaning, so since time here is linear the concept of time "there" is > meaningless. So if the concept of time "there" is meaningless so is > the concept of timelines or timetravel. I have read a whole lot about > OBEs etc and I have always been struck by a few odd things. People > having OBEs often seem to recall their experience in incredible detail > but they also seem to make some elementary mistakes, like getting the > colors wrong on the curtains in the house they're visiting. Could it > be that OBE experiencers somehow exist somewhere between our physical > universe and, for lack of a better word, some other dimension where > there is no absolute time? Is it possible to imagine a condition where > there is no past, present or future, only an infinite number of nows, > each one slightly different? As the "flatlanders" operate in two > dimensions and we know there's at least a third, are there someone out > there saying about us that humans operate in three dimensions but we > know there's at least a fourth? > > I don't think it's possible to see into the physical future or alter > the physical past, but if someone could tap into the infinite number > of nows this person could come up with facts that could be completely > accurate or totally inaccurate depending on how close the timeline > tapped is to the physical timeline. (Does that make sense?) This would > mean that one could't visit our physical past or future but any kind > of alternative past, present and future, even one so close to ours as > to be practically identical. Or maybe our physical timeline is among > the infinite number of nows and can be visited at will. Is the concept > of free will just another way of saying that we have the ability to > choose wich timeline we will be enacting here on Earth? If so one > could possible predict the future in the way of choosing it. > > Arthur Engh > > > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:21:00 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 66 Message-ID: <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc1.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 I've been following this thread for a while and I just thought I'd put in my two cents worth. I have always been under the impression that time is a by-product of our physical universe and not any kind of universal constant. Consider this: If a man walks along a road at a certain pace and his destination lies behind a hill in front of him he might be able to calculate the distance between him and his destination and say that he will see his destination in exactly x amount of minutes after having walked y amount of miles. So he would indirectly be using time to measure distance. This would make sense to him, while another man in an airplane would see no sense in this at all as he is watching the man and his destination at the same time and therefore didn't need any time reference. And what if you have only two dimensions to work with, just length and breadth? If a ball was dropped onto such a plain any inhabitants would first see a point, a widening and then a shortening line and then a point again and since they had no reference to the third dimension they would record the size of the ball as the time it took for the phenomena to appear and disappear again. The bigger ball the longer time. As the "flatlanders" use one concept, time, to explain another concept, size/height, which they are not familiar with, I believe we are also falling into the same trap. I wonder what our equivalent of height is? It seems to me that since time is a result of the physical universe if you move outside this universe the concept of time ceases to have meaning, so since time here is linear the concept of time "there" is meaningless. So if the concept of time "there" is meaningless so is the concept of timelines or timetravel. I have read a whole lot about OBEs etc and I have always been struck by a few odd things. People having OBEs often seem to recall their experience in incredible detail but they also seem to make some elementary mistakes, like getting the colors wrong on the curtains in the house they're visiting. Could it be that OBE experiencers somehow exist somewhere between our physical universe and, for lack of a better word, some other dimension where there is no absolute time? Is it possible to imagine a condition where there is no past, present or future, only an infinite number of nows, each one slightly different? As the "flatlanders" operate in two dimensions and we know there's at least a third, are there someone out there saying about us that humans operate in three dimensions but we know there's at least a fourth? I don't think it's possible to see into the physical future or alter the physical past, but if someone could tap into the infinite number of nows this person could come up with facts that could be completely accurate or totally inaccurate depending on how close the timeline tapped is to the physical timeline. (Does that make sense?) This would mean that one could't visit our physical past or future but any kind of alternative past, present and future, even one so close to ours as to be practically identical. Or maybe our physical timeline is among the infinite number of nows and can be visited at will. Is the concept of free will just another way of saying that we have the ability to choose wich timeline we will be enacting here on Earth? If so one could possible predict the future in the way of choosing it. Arthur Engh ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!fastnet!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!boris.eden.com!not-for-mail From: Jason Mason Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 23:23:25 -0500 Organization: AMICI Online Lines: 29 Message-ID: <356E383D.BAE81DB0@flash.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.81.234.135 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i686) Kevin, This is very interesting.... I find it hard to imagine all events in the past and future co-existing but if I was capable of creating an OBE... How exactly would I go about viewing the past, present and future? Thanks, Jason Kevin Colquitt wrote: > When you asked the questions below... I get the impression that you think that all > events in both past, present and future are laid in some sequential time line. > This maybe true to some extent but (I was trying to hint :) ) there is a level > consciousness (or a particular peak in consciousness) where you could experience > time in different ways. In this actuality, events in past, present and future could > co-exists. The rules would then change for the individual who managed to achieve > this state. Not only would he see the past, present and future that he knows but > also probable pasts, presents and futures. > > Once upon a time people believed the world was flat. But of course this wasn't the > case. The same is of Time and Space. > > Kevin ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 07:23:07 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 98 Message-ID: <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust36.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50A9D400885CDDD48C78491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Wells Family Fun wrote: > Hmmm.... I see. :-) > > Arthur Engh wrote: > > > I've been following this thread for a while and I just thought I'd put > > in my two cents worth. I have always been under the impression that > > time is a by-product of our physical universe and not any kind of > > universal constant. > > > > Consider this: If a man walks along a road at a certain pace and his > > destination lies behind a hill in front of him he might be able to > > calculate the distance between him and his destination and say that he > > will see his destination in exactly x amount of minutes after having > > walked y amount of miles. So he would indirectly be using time to > > measure distance. This would make sense to him, while another man in > > an airplane would see no sense in this at all as he is watching the > > man and his destination at the same time and therefore didn't need any > > time reference. > > > > And what if you have only two dimensions to work with, just length and > > breadth? If a ball was dropped onto such a plain any inhabitants would > > first see a point, a widening and then a shortening line and then a > > point again and since they had no reference to the third dimension > > they would record the size of the ball as the time it took for the > > phenomena to appear and disappear again. The bigger ball the longer > > time. > > > > As the "flatlanders" use one concept, time, to explain another > > concept, size/height, which they are not familiar with, I believe we > > are also falling into the same trap. I wonder what our equivalent of > > height is? > > > > It seems to me that since time is a result of the physical universe if > > you move outside this universe the concept of time ceases to have > > meaning, so since time here is linear the concept of time "there" is > > meaningless. So if the concept of time "there" is meaningless so is > > the concept of timelines or timetravel. I have read a whole lot about > > OBEs etc and I have always been struck by a few odd things. People > > having OBEs often seem to recall their experience in incredible detail > > but they also seem to make some elementary mistakes, like getting the > > colors wrong on the curtains in the house they're visiting. Could it > > be that OBE experiencers somehow exist somewhere between our physical > > universe and, for lack of a better word, some other dimension where > > there is no absolute time? Is it possible to imagine a condition where > > there is no past, present or future, only an infinite number of nows, > > each one slightly different? As the "flatlanders" operate in two > > dimensions and we know there's at least a third, are there someone out > > there saying about us that humans operate in three dimensions but we > > know there's at least a fourth? > > > > I don't think it's possible to see into the physical future or alter > > the physical past, but if someone could tap into the infinite number > > of nows this person could come up with facts that could be completely > > accurate or totally inaccurate depending on how close the timeline > > tapped is to the physical timeline. (Does that make sense?) This would > > mean that one could't visit our physical past or future but any kind > > of alternative past, present and future, even one so close to ours as > > to be practically identical. Or maybe our physical timeline is among > > the infinite number of nows and can be visited at will. Is the concept > > of free will just another way of saying that we have the ability to > > choose wich timeline we will be enacting here on Earth? If so one > > could possible predict the future in the way of choosing it. > > > > Arthur Engh > > > > > > This is probably one of the closest plausible explanations for what occurs during an OBE. It feels like you're on the right track. Many people overlook the fact that during OBEs many physical objects are misplaced, altered, or non-existant. I wonder (being that our physical body occupies it) whether we are able to penetrate our current physical reality at all ... but merely get a carbon copy closest to what we know. If this is the case, our chances at "proving" OBEs by comparing them to the physical are severely limited (which certainly seems to be true). We need a different basis of establishing validity. Along this line, I recall an OBE I had earlier this year ... a rather lengthy one, where I visited my boss and his family. Although the OBE took place in March, the scene during the visit took place close to Halloween. His older daughter I knew immediately, but his younger daughter was a different person entirely. Some would argue that these inconsistencies are fabrications of the mind. And I do believe that lucid dream images can filter through into the OBE space. But I also believe that with time and a talented eye they are easily decipherable. It's these other inconsistencies that seem etched into the solid OBE scene that lead me to believe that what you say is true. Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!europa.clark.net!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.idt.net!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:27:39 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 74 Message-ID: <356F0C2B.4A08@mcleodusa.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-158.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > I've been following this thread for a while and I just thought I'd put > in my two cents worth. I have always been under the impression that > time is a by-product of our physical universe and not any kind of > universal constant. > > Consider this: If a man walks along a road at a certain pace and his > destination lies behind a hill in front of him he might be able to > calculate the distance between him and his destination and say that he > will see his destination in exactly x amount of minutes after having > walked y amount of miles. So he would indirectly be using time to > measure distance. This would make sense to him, while another man in > an airplane would see no sense in this at all as he is watching the > man and his destination at the same time and therefore didn't need any > time reference. > > And what if you have only two dimensions to work with, just length and > breadth? If a ball was dropped onto such a plain any inhabitants would > first see a point, a widening and then a shortening line and then a > point again and since they had no reference to the third dimension > they would record the size of the ball as the time it took for the > phenomena to appear and disappear again. The bigger ball the longer > time. > > As the "flatlanders" use one concept, time, to explain another > concept, size/height, which they are not familiar with, I believe we > are also falling into the same trap. I wonder what our equivalent of > height is? > > It seems to me that since time is a result of the physical universe if > you move outside this universe the concept of time ceases to have > meaning, so since time here is linear the concept of time "there" is > meaningless. So if the concept of time "there" is meaningless so is > the concept of timelines or timetravel. I have read a whole lot about > OBEs etc and I have always been struck by a few odd things. People > having OBEs often seem to recall their experience in incredible detail > but they also seem to make some elementary mistakes, like getting the > colors wrong on the curtains in the house they're visiting. Could it > be that OBE experiencers somehow exist somewhere between our physical > universe and, for lack of a better word, some other dimension where > there is no absolute time? Is it possible to imagine a condition where > there is no past, present or future, only an infinite number of nows, > each one slightly different? As the "flatlanders" operate in two > dimensions and we know there's at least a third, are there someone out > there saying about us that humans operate in three dimensions but we > know there's at least a fourth? > > I don't think it's possible to see into the physical future or alter > the physical past, but if someone could tap into the infinite number > of nows this person could come up with facts that could be completely > accurate or totally inaccurate depending on how close the timeline > tapped is to the physical timeline. (Does that make sense?) This would > mean that one could't visit our physical past or future but any kind > of alternative past, present and future, even one so close to ours as > to be practically identical. Or maybe our physical timeline is among > the infinite number of nows and can be visited at will. Is the concept > of free will just another way of saying that we have the ability to > choose wich timeline we will be enacting here on Earth? If so one > could possible predict the future in the way of choosing it. > > Arthur Engh > > > > There is NO time or distance in the spirit realm. And that is just a fact. Actually, much of your hypothesizing reaches toward this conclusion. You just have to realize that the mind as well, is our most limiting means of "knowing" and needs to come subject to our spirits, then it can be useful as a servant of spiritual understanding. Until then, it is truly at enmity with it, and spiritual reality is foolishness to carnal understanding and discernment. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 20:04:12 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 58 Message-ID: <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc5.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 > This is probably one of the closest plausible explanations for what occurs >during an OBE. It feels like you're on the right track. Many people >overlook the fact that during OBEs many physical objects are misplaced, >altered, or non-existant. I wonder (being that our physical body occupies >it) whether we are able to penetrate our current physical reality at all ... >but merely get a carbon copy closest to what we know. If this is the case, >our chances at "proving" OBEs by comparing them to the physical are severely >limited (which certainly seems to be true). We need a different basis of >establishing validity. >Along this line, I recall an OBE I had earlier this year ... a rather >lengthy one, where I visited my boss and his family. Although the OBE took >place in March, the scene during the visit took place close to Halloween. >His older daughter I knew immediately, but his younger daughter was a >different person entirely. The paragraph above got me thinking... What actually happens during an OBE? As the name implies it is assumed that something moves out of the body and goes somewhere else in the physical world. If this is true it must be possible to measure whatever it is as it leaves the body and returns as it would have to have some mass. I'm aware of scientific experiments conducted on the dying where apparently the body loses a significant amount of weight at the moment of death but as far as I know nothing concrete has come out of these studies. If one were to assume that what apparently leaves the body at death and in OBEs is "the soul" and this "soul" had a measurable presence in the physical universe I can see no reason why this "soul" while inspecting the inside of lets say another house would get interior details wrong. There's also the question of passing time. You say that your OBE was a lenghty one. Is the timeframe in the OBE-state exactly the same as in the physical world? What if an OBE experiencer goes to a house and spends two hours there as measured by the clock on the wall of that house and comes back to his body just to find out that ten minutes have passed? I don't think that OBEs are the "soul" simply moving itself from place to place in the physical world, there are just too many inconsistencies. Why would there be a need to move physically at all? I think OBEs are shifts in consciousness and not movements in the physical universe. Therefore, what we see as inconsistencies really are consistencies in another reality. I wonder if the timeline you saw is just as real as ours? Did they notice you? Arthur Engh arthur.engh@eunet.no >Some would argue that these inconsistencies are fabrications of the mind. >And I do believe that lucid dream images can filter through into the OBE >space. But I also believe that with time and a talented eye they are easily >decipherable. > >It's these other inconsistencies that seem etched into the solid OBE scene >that lead me to believe that what you say is true. > >Trish > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 20:04:48 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 22 Message-ID: <6kni8o$9o2$1@gte1.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356F0C2B.4A08@mcleodusa.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust226.tnt3.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50A9E1C5B87CDD74F928491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) themissinglink wrote: > > > There is NO time or distance in the spirit realm. And that is just a > fact. Actually, much of your hypothesizing reaches toward this > conclusion. You just have to realize that the mind as well, is our most > limiting means of "knowing" and needs to come subject to our spirits, > then it can be useful as a servant of spiritual understanding. Until > then, it is truly at enmity with it, and spiritual reality is > foolishness to carnal understanding and discernment. Before you can present a fact, as fact, and offer it for consideration, you need to find some answers. I think this is what both Arthur and I struggle with. We don't simply want to "know". We want to know _how_. Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:05:18 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 98 Message-ID: <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust235.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50A9E19119ACDD842918491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > This is probably one of the closest plausible explanations for what occurs > >during an OBE. It feels like you're on the right track. Many people > >overlook the fact that during OBEs many physical objects are misplaced, > >altered, or non-existant. I wonder (being that our physical body occupies > >it) whether we are able to penetrate our current physical reality at all ... > >but merely get a carbon copy closest to what we know. If this is the case, > >our chances at "proving" OBEs by comparing them to the physical are severely > >limited (which certainly seems to be true). We need a different basis of > >establishing validity. > > >Along this line, I recall an OBE I had earlier this year ... a rather > >lengthy one, where I visited my boss and his family. Although the OBE took > >place in March, the scene during the visit took place close to Halloween. > >His older daughter I knew immediately, but his younger daughter was a > >different person entirely. > > The paragraph above got me thinking... What actually happens during an > OBE? As the name implies it is assumed that something moves out of the > body and goes somewhere else in the physical world. If this is true it > must be possible to measure whatever it is as it leaves the body and > returns as it would have to have some mass. I'm aware of scientific > experiments conducted on the dying where apparently the body loses a > significant amount of weight at the moment of death but as far as I > know nothing concrete has come out of these studies. If one were to > assume that what apparently leaves the body at death and in OBEs is > "the soul" and this "soul" had a measurable presence in the physical > universe I can see no reason why this "soul" while inspecting the > inside of lets say another house would get interior details wrong. Exactly. > There's also the question of passing time. You say that your OBE was a > lenghty one. Is the timeframe in the OBE-state exactly the same as in > the physical world? For the most part, yes. All of my OBEs are. And this is one way they aredifferent from dreams, as well, where your sense of time is way off. It can be a little confusing though ........ During an OBE movement can be much faster, especially when you're able to fly. The amount of time it takes to get from place to place is greatly diminished compared to the physical world, and this can play tricks with your sense of time. But .. most of my OBEs are from a direct awake state, so I generally know what time it is when the OBE starts. When I finally wake, I can sense how much time has passed, and when I check the clock, I'm usually correct within 10-15 minutes. Which is pretty good, considering I can't precisely watch the clock when I lay down. > What if an OBE experiencer goes to a house and > spends two hours there as measured by the clock on the wall of that > house and comes back to his body just to find out that ten minutes > have passed? This I haven't done, because I haven't had reason to notice a clock during an OBE.Mainly, your sense of time passes much as it would in the physical. If you look at the clock right now, you can appropriately 'guess' the amount of time that has passed a half hour from now, and be reasonably accurate. We only lose our sense of time when we lose our sense of consciousness ... or better yet ... when we become absorbed in something. Reading a book, watching a movie, working diligently on a project, dreaming. During an OBE, our consciousness may react to time as a matter of habit ... a hang over from our physical interactions. > > > I don't think that OBEs are the "soul" simply moving itself from place > to place in the physical world, there are just too many > inconsistencies. Why would there be a need to move physically at all? Again, exactly. There wouldn't be a need to move physically. And if thiswere the case, then there would be no dispute over OBEs. We would be overwhelmed with the 'proof'. > I think OBEs are shifts in consciousness and not movements in the > physical universe. Therefore, what we see as inconsistencies really > are consistencies in another reality. I wonder if the timeline you saw > is just as real as ours? Did they notice you? Yes, they noticed me, and we interacted for quite some time. But of course, the following day, when I mentioned it to my boss, he didn't have a clue what I was talking about. : ) (And hey .. where's Ken? He should be in on this one .........) Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news2.melbpc.org.au!not-for-mail From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 23:56:53 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 21 Message-ID: <357d4b0a.6918662@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356E383D.BAE81DB0@flash.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: b1-50.melbpc.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On Thu, 28 May 1998 23:23:25 -0500, Jason Mason wrote: >This is very interesting.... I find it hard to imagine all events in the past and >future co-existing but if I was capable of creating an OBE... How exactly would I go >about viewing the past, present and future? < snip > You could ask your spirit guides to assist you. :-) Regards, John. **************************************************** ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 30 May 1998 01:42:22 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 66 Message-ID: References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) writes: > I've been following this thread for a while and I just thought I'd put > in my two cents worth. I have always been under the impression that > time is a by-product of our physical universe and not any kind of > universal constant. A possible hypothesis. Actually I prefere the hypothesis of it being an by-product of how concious processing of information happens (focusing in space and time is neccessary to prevent drowning in data). > I have read a whole lot about > OBEs etc and I have always been struck by a few odd things. People > having OBEs often seem to recall their experience in incredible detail > but they also seem to make some elementary mistakes, like getting the > colors wrong on the curtains in the house they're visiting. Actually this one may be simple. When IBE (in body experience:-)) you can see colours because you are looking at the world through eyes that are selective to the wave length of photons being reflected by objects. When OBE you have no eyes (the eyes people see when looking at you are just projection, no more real (in the sense of usable) than eyes on an photo). Instead you are "seeing" by telepathy. This may give you shapes of objects , but it does not give you information on selective reflection of photons by the objects surfaces. The colours you "see" when OBE are actually added from your memory of what colour things should be. Sort of like a child colouring in an black on white printed book. > Could it > be that OBE experiencers somehow exist somewhere between our physical > universe and, for lack of a better word, some other dimension where > there is no absolute time? Or in our universe, just with their "input" not restricted to (or simply dominated by, as there exists in body telepathy) the bodies physical senses. > Is it possible to imagine a condition where > there is no past, present or future, only an infinite number of nows, > each one slightly different? As the "flatlanders" operate in two > dimensions and we know there's at least a third, are there someone out > there saying about us that humans operate in three dimensions but we > know there's at least a fourth? Know in the sense of an intellectual construct, sure. In the sense of experienceing it, I don't know. Would sure be stunning. > Is the concept > of free will just another way of saying that we have the ability to > choose wich timeline we will be enacting here on Earth? If so one > could possible predict the future in the way of choosing it. Very interesting thought. Great post in general. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:22:15 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 45 Message-ID: <6knmpu$12u$1@gte1.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust235.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50A9E18139DCDDF12D58491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Neil Franklin wrote: > A possible hypothesis. Actually I prefere the hypothesis of it being > an by-product of how concious processing of information happens > (focusing in space and time is neccessary to prevent drowning in > data). Wow .. I like this hypothesis. But what about unconscious processing ofinformation? Wouldn't the same 'drowning' be true? As I stated in an earlier post, time is relative to consciousness ... and when we are not actively or consciously aware, we lose our sense of time ... it almost ceases to exist. So then why are we not bombarded by data? > Actually this one may be simple. When IBE (in body experience:-)) you > can see colours because you are looking at the world through eyes that > are selective to the wave length of photons being reflected by objects. > > When OBE you have no eyes (the eyes people see when looking at you are > just projection, no more real (in the sense of usable) than eyes on an > photo). Instead you are "seeing" by telepathy. This may give you > shapes of objects , but it does not give you information on selective > reflection of photons by the objects surfaces. > > The colours you "see" when OBE are actually added from your memory of > what colour things should be. Sort of like a child colouring in an > black on white printed book. I see what you mean (no pun intended). But why, during an OBE, woulda door or window be in the wrong place? Especially considering that even within the OBE state you know it's wrong. > Or in our universe, just with their "input" not restricted to (or > simply dominated by, as there exists in body telepathy) the bodies > physical senses. Could it be that we are simply acting out of habit? Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 20:38:00 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 63 Message-ID: <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Fri, 29 May 1998 21:05:18 -0400, Trish Pike wrote: >OBE.Mainly, your sense of time passes much as it would in the physical. If you >look at the clock right now, you can appropriately 'guess' the amount of time >that has passed a half hour from now, and be reasonably accurate. We only lose >our sense of time when we lose our sense of consciousness ... or better yet ... >when we become absorbed in something. Reading a book, watching a movie, working >diligently on a project, dreaming. > >During an OBE, our consciousness may react to time as a matter of habit ... a >hang >over from our physical interactions. Yes, maybe. Let's start by assuming that time is a property of the physical universe as demonstrated by the famous experiment with the atomic clock in the airplane and the one on the ground. If the two clocks were perfectly in sync when the experiment started and out of sync when it ended and the cause of this was the difference in acceleration and speed of the airplane then by inference this must be true about the earth and everything on it. If one started out with a million perfectly accurate and synchronised wristwatches and distributed them to people around the world and checked one year after with accurate enough measuring devices no two watches would be alike and the persons on whom the watches were strapped would all be living in their own personal time. As we all are. This also opens up another interesting paradox. If the "soul" travels out of the body and moves in the physical world it would have to have mass and therefore physical laws would have an effect. If this "soul" were travelling at high speed this "soul" would actually be operating in a different timeline than the body behind in the bed! How is it possible to be younger than yourself?! :) Think about this: What if the universe consists of an infinite number of "dimensions" or timelines and what if we can travel to any of these by simply shifting our perception of time? Or what if we simply exist in all dimensions at once and there's no travelling at all... Robert Monroe stated that he simply mentally turned around in bed and shifted. I wonder if we have an infinite amount of "bodies" or "timelines" occupying the same physical space... I guess the analogy would be that the body would be like a radio. There's an infinite amount of radiowaves out there and the radio can tune in thousands of channels, so why would the radio (assuming it was sentient) go to England to get the latest news physically when it could much more easily tune itself to receive the BBC World Service? >> I think OBEs are shifts in consciousness and not movements in the >> physical universe. Therefore, what we see as inconsistencies really >> are consistencies in another reality. I wonder if the timeline you saw >> is just as real as ours? Did they notice you? > >Yes, they noticed me, and we interacted for quite some time. But of course, >the following day, when I mentioned it to my boss, he didn't have a clue what >I was talking about. : ) Interesting! What if two OOB experiencers decided to meet and exchange information in the out of body state and compared notes when they woke up? That would be fascinating reading! Greetings Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 20:38:02 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 16 Message-ID: <357049c4.41306604@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356F0C2B.4A08@mcleodusa.net> <6kni8o$9o2$1@gte1.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Fri, 29 May 1998 20:04:48 -0400, Trish Pike wrote: > Before you can present a fact, as fact, and offer it for consideration, >you >need to find some answers. I think this is what both Arthur and I struggle > >with. We don't simply want to "know". We want to know _how_. > >Trish > Very well put, Trish! Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!btnet-peer!btnet!news-lond.gip.net!news-stkh.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!sol.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 20:41:36 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 44 Message-ID: <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On 30 May 1998 01:42:22 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >A possible hypothesis. Actually I prefere the hypothesis of it being >an by-product of how concious processing of information happens >(focusing in space and time is neccessary to prevent drowning in >data). Yes... Try this hypothesis: Imagine there are two opposite poles, one purely physical and one purely mental and an infinite number of stages in between. What if a pure mental state is just random information and the physical world is structured information then time would be necessary to establish cause and effect in the physical world, wouldn't it? No, wait... time wouldn't be necessary, it would develop automatically as a part of the information structure. Was this the Big Bang? >The colours you "see" when OBE are actually added from your memory of >what colour things should be. Sort of like a child colouring in an >black on white printed book. Then I take it that you assume that the OBE experiencer does not physically move his "soul", "astral body" or whatever to another physical location? If not, any thoughts on what exactly happens? >> Is it possible to imagine a condition where >> there is no past, present or future, only an infinite number of nows, >> each one slightly different? As the "flatlanders" operate in two >> dimensions and we know there's at least a third, are there someone out >> there saying about us that humans operate in three dimensions but we >> know there's at least a fourth? > >Know in the sense of an intellectual construct, sure. In the sense of >experienceing it, I don't know. Would sure be stunning. Yes. I seem to remember having seen somewhere a picture of a four-dimensional object in a three-dimensional space. It looked like a picture of a dice inside a dice. I wonder if it would be possible to use a computer to produce images of what any four-dimensional object would look like in three-dimensional space? Arthur (See my other postings) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net!news3.atl.bellsouth.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3570732E.2DBFD2BA@bellsouth.net> From: "John R. Mizell" Reply-To: superj@bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 37 Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 21:00:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: host-209-214-178-137.chs.bellsouth.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 17:00:43 EST Arthur Engh wrote: >> Is it possible to imagine a condition where >> there is no past, present or future, only an infinite number of nows, > >> each one slightly different? As the "flatlanders" operate in two > >> dimensions and we know there's at least a third, are there someone out > >> there saying about us that humans operate in three dimensions but we > >> know there's at least a fourth? > > > >Know in the sense of an intellectual construct, sure. In the sense of > >experienceing it, I don't know. Would sure be stunning. > > Yes. I seem to remember having seen somewhere a picture of a > four-dimensional object in a three-dimensional space. It looked like a > picture of a dice inside a dice. I wonder if it would be possible to > use a computer to produce images of what any four-dimensional object > would look like in three-dimensional space? > > Arthur > (See my other postings) If I remember correctly.... isn't the fourth dimension "time"? 1st dimension: a single point 2nd dimension: a plane ( a.k.a.- length) 3rd dimension: two intersecting planes (a.k.a. - height) 4th dimension: time? By all means I am no geometry or physics major, but this thread does pique a certain curiosity. John M. *Who hasn't gone OBE yet, but keeps practicing...* **Who also thinks a computer model of a fourth dimension (that isn't time) would be interesting.** ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!fci-se!fci!masternews.telia.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.idt.net!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 22:13:55 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 68 Message-ID: <3570CAF3.447F@mcleodusa.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-184.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 1998 21:05:18 -0400, Trish Pike > wrote: > > >OBE.Mainly, your sense of time passes much as it would in the physical. If you > >look at the clock right now, you can appropriately 'guess' the amount of time > >that has passed a half hour from now, and be reasonably accurate. We only lose > >our sense of time when we lose our sense of consciousness ... or better yet ... > >when we become absorbed in something. Reading a book, watching a movie, working > >diligently on a project, dreaming. > > > >During an OBE, our consciousness may react to time as a matter of habit ... a > >hang > >over from our physical interactions. > > Yes, maybe. Let's start by assuming that time is a property of the > physical universe as demonstrated by the famous experiment with the > atomic clock in the airplane and the one on the ground. If the two > clocks were perfectly in sync when the experiment started and out of > sync when it ended and the cause of this was the difference in > acceleration and speed of the airplane then by inference this must be > true about the earth and everything on it. If one started out with a > million perfectly accurate and synchronised wristwatches and > distributed them to people around the world and checked one year after > with accurate enough measuring devices no two watches would be alike > and the persons on whom the watches were strapped would all be living > in their own personal time. As we all are. > > This also opens up another interesting paradox. If the "soul" travels > out of the body and moves in the physical world it would have to have > mass and therefore physical laws would have an effect. If this "soul" > were travelling at high speed this "soul" would actually be operating > in a different timeline than the body behind in the bed! How is it > possible to be younger than yourself?! :) > > Think about this: What if the universe consists of an infinite number > of "dimensions" or timelines and what if we can travel to any of these > by simply shifting our perception of time? Or what if we simply exist > in all dimensions at once and there's no travelling at all... Robert > Monroe stated that he simply mentally turned around in bed and > shifted. I wonder if we have an infinite amount of "bodies" or > "timelines" occupying the same physical space... I guess the analogy > would be that the body would be like a radio. There's an infinite > amount of radiowaves out there and the radio can tune in thousands of > channels, so why would the radio (assuming it was sentient) go to > England to get the latest news physically when it could much more > easily tune itself to receive the BBC World Service? > > >> I think OBEs are shifts in consciousness and not movements in the > >> physical universe. Therefore, what we see as inconsistencies really > >> are consistencies in another reality. I wonder if the timeline you saw > >> is just as real as ours? Did they notice you? > > > >Yes, they noticed me, and we interacted for quite some time. But of course, > >the following day, when I mentioned it to my boss, he didn't have a clue what > >I was talking about. : ) > > Interesting! What if two OOB experiencers decided to meet and exchange > information in the out of body state and compared notes when they woke > up? That would be fascinating reading! > > Greetings > Arthur This was quite brilliant and probably closer to the real possibilities than not! Do you also love Gurdjieff? ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 30 May 1998 23:17:17 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <6knmpu$12u$1@gte1.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Trish Pike writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > A possible hypothesis. Actually I prefere the hypothesis of it being > > an by-product of how concious processing of information happens > > (focusing in space and time is neccessary to prevent drowning in > > data). > Wow .. I like this hypothesis. But what about unconscious processing > ofinformation? Wouldn't the same 'drowning' be true? As I stated in an > earlier > post, time is relative to consciousness ... and when we are not actively > or consciously aware, we lose our sense of time ... it almost ceases to > exist. > So then why are we not bombarded by data? This lies in the difference between concious and unconcious processing. Unconcious can deal with processing many things because it gives each one an own bit of brain. Concious processing OTOH must manage to produce an "I" and relate stuff to it, this sort of requires it to use 1 bit of brain, this becomes an bottleneck, through which everything must go sequencially. So what has got to go through must be reduced by filtering out the majority of stuff. Think of th ewhole process from senses to conciousness as an conical pipe, big at the front, running togethere to an pin hole at the end. > > Actually this one may be simple. When IBE (in body experience:-)) you > > can see colours because you are looking at the world through eyes that > > are selective to the wave length of photons being reflected by objects. > > > > When OBE you have no eyes (the eyes people see when looking at you are > > just projection, no more real (in the sense of usable) than eyes on an > > photo). Instead you are "seeing" by telepathy. This may give you > > shapes of objects , but it does not give you information on selective > > reflection of photons by the objects surfaces. > > > > The colours you "see" when OBE are actually added from your memory of > > what colour things should be. Sort of like a child colouring in an > > black on white printed book. > > I see what you mean (no pun intended). But why, during an OBE, woulda door > or window be in the wrong place? Especially considering that even within > the OBE state you know it's wrong. It made an nice pun though :-). As for the moved objects, telepathy is also known to be imprecise. Perhaps OBEers suffer from this. Also, from reading a.oob I have the impression that moved objects are not universal, perhaps "etheric" OBE (telepathy) is reliable, while "astral" OBE (partly dreams mixed in?) is not reliable. Note that I am still waiting for my first OBE and so for having first-hand experiences, so this one is speculative. > > Or in our universe, just with their "input" not restricted to (or > > simply dominated by, as there exists in body telepathy) the bodies > > physical senses. > > Could it be that we are simply acting out of habit? That is also possible. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:06:06 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 68 Message-ID: <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust79.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50A8203058ACDDD19C58491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > Yes, maybe. Let's start by assuming that time is a property of the > physical universe as demonstrated by the famous experiment with the > atomic clock in the airplane and the one on the ground. If the two > clocks were perfectly in sync when the experiment started and out of > sync when it ended and the cause of this was the difference in > acceleration and speed of the airplane then by inference this must be > true about the earth and everything on it. If one started out with a > million perfectly accurate and synchronised wristwatches and > distributed them to people around the world and checked one year after > with accurate enough measuring devices no two watches would be alike > and the persons on whom the watches were strapped would all be living > in their own personal time. As we all are. > > This also opens up another interesting paradox. If the "soul" travels > out of the body and moves in the physical world it would have to have > mass and therefore physical laws would have an effect. If this "soul" > were travelling at high speed this "soul" would actually be operating > in a different timeline than the body behind in the bed! How is it > possible to be younger than yourself?! :) Lawdalmighty Arthur you're right! Not only that, but how would we evenbe able to enter the body again? > > > Think about this: What if the universe consists of an infinite number > of "dimensions" or timelines and what if we can travel to any of these > by simply shifting our perception of time? Or what if we simply exist > in all dimensions at once and there's no travelling at all... Robert > Monroe stated that he simply mentally turned around in bed and > shifted. I wonder if we have an infinite amount of "bodies" or > "timelines" occupying the same physical space... I guess the analogy > would be that the body would be like a radio. There's an infinite > amount of radiowaves out there and the radio can tune in thousands of > channels, so why would the radio (assuming it was sentient) go to > England to get the latest news physically when it could much more > easily tune itself to receive the BBC World Service? This makes so much more sense. > > > >> I think OBEs are shifts in consciousness and not movements in the > >> physical universe. Therefore, what we see as inconsistencies really > >> are consistencies in another reality. I wonder if the timeline you saw > >> is just as real as ours? Did they notice you? > > > >Yes, they noticed me, and we interacted for quite some time. But of course, > >the following day, when I mentioned it to my boss, he didn't have a clue what > >I was talking about. : ) > > Interesting! What if two OOB experiencers decided to meet and exchange > information in the out of body state and compared notes when they woke > up? That would be fascinating reading! > > Greetings > Arthur Sure would be. But with so many different dimensions, tuning in to the same frequency would be extremely difficult. How could we even attempt to try it? Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 13:02:01 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 80 Message-ID: <6ks27o$rb3$1@gte1.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <6knmpu$12u$1@gte1.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust79.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50A83475487CD9C42938491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Neil Franklin wrote: > Trish Pike writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > A possible hypothesis. Actually I prefere the hypothesis of it being > > > an by-product of how concious processing of information happens > > > (focusing in space and time is neccessary to prevent drowning in > > > data). > > Wow .. I like this hypothesis. But what about unconscious processing > > ofinformation? Wouldn't the same 'drowning' be true? As I stated in an > > earlier > > post, time is relative to consciousness ... and when we are not actively > > or consciously aware, we lose our sense of time ... it almost ceases to > > exist. > > So then why are we not bombarded by data? > > This lies in the difference between concious and unconcious processing. > Unconcious can deal with processing many things because it gives each > one an own bit of brain. Concious processing OTOH must manage to > produce an "I" and relate stuff to it, this sort of requires it to use > 1 bit of brain, this becomes an bottleneck, through which everything > must go sequencially. So what has got to go through must be reduced by > filtering out the majority of stuff. > > Think of th ewhole process from senses to conciousness as an conical > pipe, big at the front, running togethere to an pin hole at the end. Thank you. That makes it much easier to visualize. > > > > > Actually this one may be simple. When IBE (in body experience:-)) you > > > can see colours because you are looking at the world through eyes that > > > are selective to the wave length of photons being reflected by objects. > > > > > > When OBE you have no eyes (the eyes people see when looking at you are > > > just projection, no more real (in the sense of usable) than eyes on an > > > photo). Instead you are "seeing" by telepathy. This may give you > > > shapes of objects , but it does not give you information on selective > > > reflection of photons by the objects surfaces. > > > > > > The colours you "see" when OBE are actually added from your memory of > > > what colour things should be. Sort of like a child colouring in an > > > black on white printed book. > > > > I see what you mean (no pun intended). But why, during an OBE, woulda door > > or window be in the wrong place? Especially considering that even within > > the OBE state you know it's wrong. > > It made an nice pun though :-). > > As for the moved objects, telepathy is also known to be imprecise. > Perhaps OBEers suffer from this. Also, from reading a.oob I have the > impression that moved objects are not universal, perhaps "etheric" OBE > (telepathy) is reliable, while "astral" OBE (partly dreams mixed in?) > is not reliable. Note that I am still waiting for my first OBE and so > for having first-hand experiences, so this one is speculative. I'd say .. from my experiences .. that no true boundary exists between the ethericand astral, and that a true etheric OBE is extremely rare. As you stated, we need to consider that part of the brain is still functioning in a sleep state, and dream images will filter in. And considering also, that dreams take place during REM sleep ... what would happen if REM sleep is supressed? Last night I had a series of OBEs that took place over a two hour period of time. If my REM sleep had been supressed, and your suggestions are correct, I would have had no other choice than to telepathically fill the need of conscious assimilation. It's interesting to think of the possibilites. Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.giganews.com!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 19:55:03 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 33 Message-ID: <6ksqum$fro$1@gte2.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2cust30.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50A83041685CD8852CF8491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Neil Franklin wrote: > Actually he isn't right. It would not make "_you_ older than _you_" > (and as such be a paradoxon). > > It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are > 2 different things this is no paradox. Ok .. then these two different things would be existing in two different time frames,and the soul wouldn't be able to enter the body again. This is all assuming that a soul vacates the body and acts independently in the physical world, governed by physical laws. > > > Interesting! What if two OOB experiencers decided to meet and exchange > > > information in the out of body state and compared notes when they woke > > > up? That would be fascinating reading! > > Sure would be. But with so many different dimensions, tuning in to the same > > frequency would be extremely difficult. How could we even attempt to try it? > > This experiment is actually being run by some members of this news > group! The results up to now can be found at: > > http://members.tripod.com/~Frodpod/obemain As one who has participated in these excursions, I must admit, we haven't had much success attempting to meet at physical locations. Any ideas, opinions, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!206.251.127.50!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:13:37 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 39 Message-ID: <6kss1h$lc2$1@gte2.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3571b35c.43936133@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2cust30.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50A83065280CD8243928491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > On Sun, 31 May 1998 12:06:06 -0400, Trish Pike > wrote: > > >> Interesting! What if two OOB experiencers decided to meet and exchange > >> information in the out of body state and compared notes when they woke > >> up? That would be fascinating reading! > > > Sure would be. But with so many different dimensions, tuning in to the same > >frequency would be extremely difficult. How could we even attempt to try it? > > > >Trish > > > What if two people decided to go OOB to the same physical place at the > same time and sort of try to meet and tune into each others reality? It's been tried, with very little success. Let's say we are able to move within an infinite number of planes existing virtually simultaneously ... but not be able to enter the physical plane as we know it because our body is occupying that space/time .... how do we determine which virtual plane is the correct one in which to meet? > Would each perceive the surroundings differently or would the timeline > coalesce into one commonly perceived reality? If so, what would be the > effect if thousands could do the same thing? Could enough entities > agree on the same timeline to create the earth or maybe the entire > physical universe? Just speculating! > > I understand where you are going with this ..... and thinking of it, is fascinating! Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:51:15 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 11 Message-ID: <3571af8c.42959706@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <3570CAF3.447F@mcleodusa.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc2.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sat, 30 May 1998 22:13:55 -0500, themissinglink wrote: >This was quite brilliant and probably closer to the real possibilities >than not! Do you also love Gurdjieff? Thanks. I'm just speculating wildly here. Who's Gurdjieff? I've never heard of him. Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:51:16 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3571b35c.43936133@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc2.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sun, 31 May 1998 12:06:06 -0400, Trish Pike wrote: >> Interesting! What if two OOB experiencers decided to meet and exchange >> information in the out of body state and compared notes when they woke >> up? That would be fascinating reading! > Sure would be. But with so many different dimensions, tuning in to the same >frequency would be extremely difficult. How could we even attempt to try it? > >Trish > What if two people decided to go OOB to the same physical place at the same time and sort of try to meet and tune into each others reality? Would each perceive the surroundings differently or would the timeline coalesce into one commonly perceived reality? If so, what would be the effect if thousands could do the same thing? Could enough entities agree on the same timeline to create the earth or maybe the entire physical universe? Just speculating! Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:51:18 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 31 Message-ID: <3571b4ee.44337497@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3570732E.2DBFD2BA@bellsouth.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc2.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sat, 30 May 1998 21:00:43 GMT, "John R. Mizell" wrote: > If I remember correctly.... isn't the fourth dimension >"time"? > 1st dimension: a single point > 2nd dimension: a plane ( a.k.a.- length) > 3rd dimension: two intersecting planes (a.k.a. - height) > 4th dimension: time? > > By all means I am no geometry or physics major, but this >thread does pique a certain curiosity. > >John M. >*Who hasn't gone OBE yet, but keeps practicing...* >**Who also thinks a computer model of a fourth dimension >(that isn't time) would be interesting.** > I'm not exactly a scholar myself so I have no idea how the establishment views this question either. I just started out with the assumption that if you have one line you had one dimension, if you add another one 90 degrees on the end of the first one you have two dimensions (Flatland), if you add a third line in the intersecting corner of the first and second and placed it at right angles to the other two you have the third dimension (the cube) so I thought it only natural that if you next placed a fourth line somewhere in there at right angles to the other three the resulting structure would be a fourth dimensional artifact... If I took a wrong turn in there somewhere please let me know! :) Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!coop.net!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:56:36 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 30 Message-ID: <35723484.CB6061EF@soundsculpture.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp12.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Neil Franklin wrote: > > Trish Pike writes: > > > This also opens up another interesting paradox. If the "soul" travels > > > out of the body and moves in the physical world it would have to have > > > mass and therefore physical laws would have an effect. If this "soul" > > > were travelling at high speed this "soul" would actually be operating > > > in a different timeline than the body behind in the bed! How is it > > > possible to be younger than yourself?! :) > > > > Lawdalmighty Arthur you're right! Not only that, but how would we evenbe able to > > enter the body again? > > Actually he isn't right. It would not make "_you_ older than _you_" > (and as such be a paradoxon). > > It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are > 2 different things this is no paradox. > Wrong!!!! Because it is your soul that is traveling at a high rate of speed and not your body, your soul would be *younger* than your physical body, not older. (This of course assumes you have a soul with mass which I don't subscribe to. But that's beside the point.) Ken "Everything should be as simple as possible but not one bit simpler." -Albert Einstein ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 31 May 1998 23:04:24 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Trish Pike writes: > > This also opens up another interesting paradox. If the "soul" travels > > out of the body and moves in the physical world it would have to have > > mass and therefore physical laws would have an effect. If this "soul" > > were travelling at high speed this "soul" would actually be operating > > in a different timeline than the body behind in the bed! How is it > > possible to be younger than yourself?! :) > > Lawdalmighty Arthur you're right! Not only that, but how would we evenbe able to > enter the body again? Actually he isn't right. It would not make "_you_ older than _you_" (and as such be a paradoxon). It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are 2 different things this is no paradox. In fact if the occultists are right and souls pre-exist their bodies, then your soul is already older. Think of your body being older than the clothes you are wearing, doesn't give any problems. > > Interesting! What if two OOB experiencers decided to meet and exchange > > information in the out of body state and compared notes when they woke > > up? That would be fascinating reading! > Sure would be. But with so many different dimensions, tuning in to the same > frequency would be extremely difficult. How could we even attempt to try it? This experiment is actually being run by some members of this news group! The results up to now can be found at: http://members.tripod.com/~Frodpod/obemain -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!coop.net!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 23:12:14 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3572382E.F0F5E20@soundsculpture.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp12.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Neil Franklin wrote: > > At the moment I see 2 hypothesis: > > - the soul is an artefact of the brain, it allwas stays there, simply > the point considered "I" is moved about in the telepathically recieved > world. > > - there exists some separate soul (an etheric(?) thing), that travels > and can also survive bodily death. > Or 3: The soul does not and never has resided in the body. During an in-body-experience the soul is in tune with the physical brain and during an OBE it is tuned into another source of input which may describe an event a million miles away. In this case the soul no more travels from the body to this location any more than changing channels on your TV from "LA Law" to "Laverne and Shirley" means you are traveling cross country. Ken "Everything should be as simple as possible but not one bit simpler." -Albert Einstein ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 31 May 1998 23:25:19 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 91 Message-ID: References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) writes: > On 30 May 1998 01:42:22 +0200, Neil Franklin > wrote: > >A possible hypothesis. Actually I prefere the hypothesis of it being > >an by-product of how concious processing of information happens > >(focusing in space and time is neccessary to prevent drowning in > >data). > > Yes... Try this hypothesis: Imagine there are two opposite poles, one > purely physical and one purely mental and an infinite number of stages > in between. What if a pure mental state is just random information and > the physical world is structured information then time would be > necessary to establish cause and effect in the physical world, > wouldn't it? No, wait... time wouldn't be necessary, it would develop > automatically as a part of the information structure. Was this the Big > Bang? I am not sure whether I am understanding what you are saying, neverless: Time is an concept developed by the human conciousness to describe the phenomen, that things observed keep on changing in an uniform manner. Or rather that we are drifing at an constant speed through the different positions in 4 dimensional space. Time and space are in Einsteinian 4 dimensional space equivalents. (any time measured in seconds can be converted to an distance in metres by multiplying with 299 million). But time in this sense certainly has nothing to do with an information structure. As for the big bang, this refers to the observation that the size of space is increasing. Putting this into the real of flatlanders: think of their flat world as actually being the surface of an childs baloon (they percieve it as flat with non 180 degrees triangles = non euclidean geometry). Now think of this baloon being blown up. That makes distances grow (and angles shrink). They could now speculate that at some time in the past the world had zero size. That time point would be the big bang. > >The colours you "see" when OBE are actually added from your memory of > >what colour things should be. Sort of like a child colouring in an > >black on white printed book. > > Then I take it that you assume that the OBE experiencer does not > physically move his "soul", "astral body" or whatever to another > physical location? If not, any thoughts on what exactly happens? At the moment I see 2 hypothesis: - the soul is an artefact of the brain, it allwas stays there, simply the point considered "I" is moved about in the telepathically recieved world. - there exists some separate soul (an etheric(?) thing), that travels and can also survive bodily death. At the moment I know of no conclusive evidence to prefer one hypothesis over the other. That is why I an desiring to do OBE, to see if that leads to evidence. At the moment I, due to reading about ghosts, tend te be slightly more on the separate soul side, but I often when writing pick the one easier to write from. > Yes. I seem to remember having seen somewhere a picture of a > four-dimensional object in a three-dimensional space. It looked like a > picture of a dice inside a dice. An 4 dimensional Hypercube. Actually this is just an representation, not how 4 dimensional really looks. It uses an trick, that our eyes are really 2 dimensional but manage to see an 3 dimensional world by using projection to flatten it. An hypercube simply flattens more dimensions. > I wonder if it would be possible to > use a computer to produce images of what any four-dimensional object > would look like in three-dimensional space? Doing projection is easy for computers. Ever CAD package does this when generating those synthetic pictures used in film special effects. BTW: I am system administrator of an CAD department. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 01 Jun 1998 00:35:34 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3570732E.2DBFD2BA@bellsouth.net> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "John R. Mizell" writes: > Arthur Engh wrote: > > Yes. I seem to remember having seen somewhere a picture of a > > four-dimensional object in a three-dimensional space. It looked like a > > picture of a dice inside a dice. I wonder if it would be possible to > > use a computer to produce images of what any four-dimensional object > > would look like in three-dimensional space? > > If I remember correctly.... isn't the fourth dimension > "time"? In the Einsteinian description of cosmology time is regarded as an equivalent of time. Note that this applies to such things as calculating acceleration vs force problems. Speed (and so changes of it) are measured as distance/time. In relativity the distance has to be corrected by an time derived summand. Think of the Pythagoras distance = root of length sqare + width sqare in 3d you must add heigh sqare before doing the root in 4d you must also add time multiplied with light speed and then sqared I wasn't interested enough to memorise the rest :-). For the normal perception of space and time it is irrelevant (you are traveling nowhere near light speed, where the more complicated math of relativity theory deviate form newtonian mechanics). > 1st dimension: a single point > 2nd dimension: a plane ( a.k.a.- length) > 3rd dimension: two intersecting planes (a.k.a. - height) > 4th dimension: time? 1: line/lenght 2: plane/width 3: volume/height 4: time/duration -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:13:45 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3572e21c.36647012@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3571b35c.43936133@news.eunet.no> <6kss1h$lc2$1@gte2.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sun, 31 May 1998 20:13:37 -0400, Trish Pike wrote: >> What if two people decided to go OOB to the same physical place at the >> same time and sort of try to meet and tune into each others reality? > >It's been tried, with very little success. Let's say we are able to move within an >infinite number of planes existing virtually simultaneously ... but not be able to >enter the physical plane as we know it because our body is occupying that >space/time .... how do we determine which virtual plane is the correct one in >which to meet? I don't know... I imagined that the closer you got to the same plane the more substantial the other people would seem to be...? When you're OOB do you notice if you can see through some things or people and not others or do they have the same "substance"? Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:13:47 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3572e453.37213461@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On 31 May 1998 23:04:24 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >Trish Pike writes: >> > This also opens up another interesting paradox. If the "soul" travels >> > out of the body and moves in the physical world it would have to have >> > mass and therefore physical laws would have an effect. If this "soul" >> > were travelling at high speed this "soul" would actually be operating >> > in a different timeline than the body behind in the bed! How is it >> > possible to be younger than yourself?! :) >> >> Lawdalmighty Arthur you're right! Not only that, but how would we evenbe able to >> enter the body again? > >Actually he isn't right. It would not make "_you_ older than _you_" >(and as such be a paradoxon). > >It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are >2 different things this is no paradox. > >In fact if the occultists are right and souls pre-exist their bodies, >then your soul is already older. Think of your body being older than >the clothes you are wearing, doesn't give any problems. I'm just speculating. You are stating that the "soul" and the body are two different things. Since there is no empirical evidence for that I would have to say that you are just stating a dogma. In fact, if we are to consider the statements by among others Robert Monroe describing the process of leaving his body he clearly states that sometimes when he went out of his body he went out of his second body afterwards. I can't take that to mean that we are supposed to have two or more "souls", so I think the body/soul theory is much too limiting to explain what's going on here. Don't get stuck. We just have to try to find a theory that fits all the circumstantial evidence, not the other way around. Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!fci-se!fci!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:13:49 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 30 Message-ID: <3572ea96.38817164@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <35723484.CB6061EF@soundsculpture.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sun, 31 May 1998 22:56:36 -0600, Ken wrote: >> It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are >> 2 different things this is no paradox. >> > >Wrong!!!! Because it is your soul that is traveling at a high rate of >speed and not your body, your soul would be *younger* than your physical >body, not older. (This of course assumes you have a soul with mass >which I don't subscribe to. But that's beside the point.) Right!!!! Now, we don't know what a "soul" is or if it exists at all, at least not according to empirical evidence. The general assumption is that we have one body and one "soul", which I find incredibly simplistic. Robert Monroe for instance talks about leaving his body and then leaving this next "body" too. Which one of these "bodies" would be the "soul" in the traditional meaning of the word and what then is the second "body"? Or do we have two, three or an infinite number of these "bodies"? Mr Monroe seems to indiciate that for each time he went out of one of these "bodies" he removed himself further from the physical world. He would then have several "bodies" each one younger than the next. And what about animals and plants? Do they have one or many "souls" and do any of them travel? I don't think we have enough circumstantial evidence to even begin to form an informed opinion or at least reach any firm conclusion. All we can do for now is collect information. By the way, how could you have a soul without mass? Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:13:50 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 25 Message-ID: <3572fd7a.43653046@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3570732E.2DBFD2BA@bellsouth.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On 01 Jun 1998 00:35:34 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >In the Einsteinian description of cosmology >time is regarded as an equivalent of time. What? Quote from my encyclopedia (badly translated from Norwegian): "A straight line is one-dimensional, a plane two-dimensional and space three-dimensional. A mathematical expression for this is that one points position on a straight line is determined by one number, one points position on a plane is determined by two numbers and one points position in space is determined by three numbers. Nothing stops continuing this to a room with more than three dimensions. As well as you can build up a plane geometry in two dimensions and a space geometry in three, you can build a geometry in n dimensions." Nothing here is said about time other than that a non-euclidian four-dimensional geometry has become invaluable for the development of the theory of relativity. I think I'll go to the library tomorrow and check the Encyclopedia Britannica... :) Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:13:52 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3573023a.44869596@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On 31 May 1998 23:25:19 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >At the moment I know of no conclusive evidence to prefer one >hypothesis over the other. That is why I an desiring to do OBE, to see >if that leads to evidence. > >At the moment I, due to reading about ghosts, tend te be slightly more >on the separate soul side, but I often when writing pick the one >easier to write from. Yes, I understand the problem. Whenever I think I have figured something out some pesky little fact pops up and ruins everything. Like when I thought we had one body and one soul and along comes Robert Monroe describing how he left his physical body and then left his "soul" or "astral body" so that he in practice had to have at least three bodies. > > >> Yes. I seem to remember having seen somewhere a picture of a >> four-dimensional object in a three-dimensional space. It looked like a >> picture of a dice inside a dice. > >An 4 dimensional Hypercube. Actually this is just an representation, >not how 4 dimensional really looks. It uses an trick, that our eyes >are really 2 dimensional but manage to see an 3 dimensional world by >using projection to flatten it. An hypercube simply flattens more >dimensions. I don't see how time comes into the picture yet because I don't understand how you would or could flatten time but I'll try the Encyclopedia Britannica tomorrow and see if I can wrap my head around the problem. My greatest problem is that no matter how many clever mathematical expressions one uses I don't get it until I can visualize it in my head and thereby understand it. Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:13:53 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3573065f.45930545@news.eunet.no> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3572382E.F0F5E20@soundsculpture.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sun, 31 May 1998 23:12:14 -0600, Ken wrote: >The soul does not and never has resided in the body. During an >in-body-experience the soul is in tune with the physical brain and >during an OBE it is tuned into another source of input which may >describe an event a million miles away. In this case the soul no more >travels from the body to this location any more than changing channels >on your TV from "LA Law" to "Laverne and Shirley" means you are >traveling cross country. Right! Assume that this is true. Does this mean that we are constantly swimming in a sea of "psychic impressions"? Do we make those impressions ourselves? How do we pick which impressions are beneficial for us or are they picked for us? If we are only physical beings, would our "mental projections" or thoughts create an electromagnetic field or a field of some other kind thereby creating what some people call the Akashic Records? If we think long enough and hard enough on something will it on some level be created for others to experience? If so there wouldn't be a need for a soul to come from somewhere but we would sort of create one for ourselves in the prosess of growing up and experiencing life. Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 12:50:47 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 28 Message-ID: <35758CF7.4908@mcleodusa.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <3570CAF3.447F@mcleodusa.net> <3571af8c.42959706@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-180.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > On Sat, 30 May 1998 22:13:55 -0500, themissinglink > wrote: > > >This was quite brilliant and probably closer to the real possibilities > >than not! Do you also love Gurdjieff? > > Thanks. I'm just speculating wildly here. Who's Gurdjieff? I've never > heard of him. > > Arthur He was a marvelous and far too brilliant, I guess you could say: metaphysical physicist. A great biography on him by one of his most extraordinary students is called "In Search of the Miraculous-- fragments of an Unknown Teaching", by Ouspensky, and is a marvellous read. If you want to read Gurdjieff, himself.... he is intense going, but a few of the intellectual acrobats on this NG would probably find the challenge invigorating. His most famous is probably "Meetings with Remarkable Men", and one is something about Beelzebub's talks with his grandson.... I do not remember clearly. "Views from the Real World", and "Heralding the Coming Good", I recall. Anyway.... on a rainy evening, putting yourself to sleep in this atmosphere, should surely enhance your "night life"! G.I. Gurdjieff, I remember now, because his initials matched my dad's. Happy adventuring. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 12:57:23 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 34 Message-ID: <35758E83.69C1@mcleodusa.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3571b35c.43936133@news.eunet.no> <6kss1h$lc2$1@gte2.gte.net> <3572e21c.36647012@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-180.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > On Sun, 31 May 1998 20:13:37 -0400, Trish Pike > wrote: > > >> What if two people decided to go OOB to the same physical place at the > >> same time and sort of try to meet and tune into each others reality? > > > >It's been tried, with very little success. Let's say we are able to move within an > >infinite number of planes existing virtually simultaneously ... but not be able to > >enter the physical plane as we know it because our body is occupying that > >space/time .... how do we determine which virtual plane is the correct one in > >which to meet? > > I don't know... I imagined that the closer you got to the same plane > the more substantial the other people would seem to be...? When you're > OOB do you notice if you can see through some things or people and not > others or do they have the same "substance"? > > Arthur A lot is related to the fact that we must rise in our vibrational levels so that they will not have to come down as far in their vibrational state to communicate; if you understand what I am saying. The more we can ascend, the easier the communication will come for us. That is why it helps to go into the deep changes of our diet, of our meditation, of colonics and other aspects of the cleansing of the physical, soul and spirit..... so that our level of living, our personal vibrational state, will go up much higher. The only reason we do not see those in the realm of spirit is purely because of their vibrational state, the level they are abiding on. And of course, there are many abiding places, grosser states of many dwelling in spirit regions even as we witness the same variations on this earthly side. So the ease with which some gravitate to lower or higher entities would have to be figured in here. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:08:28 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 60 Message-ID: <3575911C.490C@mcleodusa.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3572e453.37213461@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-180.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > On 31 May 1998 23:04:24 +0200, Neil Franklin > wrote: > > >Trish Pike writes: > >> > This also opens up another interesting paradox. If the "soul" travels > >> > out of the body and moves in the physical world it would have to have > >> > mass and therefore physical laws would have an effect. If this "soul" > >> > were travelling at high speed this "soul" would actually be operating > >> > in a different timeline than the body behind in the bed! How is it > >> > possible to be younger than yourself?! :) > >> > >> Lawdalmighty Arthur you're right! Not only that, but how would we evenbe able to > >> enter the body again? > > > >Actually he isn't right. It would not make "_you_ older than _you_" > >(and as such be a paradoxon). > > > >It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are > >2 different things this is no paradox. > > > >In fact if the occultists are right and souls pre-exist their bodies, > >then your soul is already older. Think of your body being older than > >the clothes you are wearing, doesn't give any problems. > > I'm just speculating. You are stating that the "soul" and the body are > two different things. Since there is no empirical evidence for that I > would have to say that you are just stating a dogma. In fact, if we > are to consider the statements by among others Robert Monroe > describing the process of leaving his body he clearly states that > sometimes when he went out of his body he went out of his second body > afterwards. I can't take that to mean that we are supposed to have two > or more "souls", so I think the body/soul theory is much too limiting > to explain what's going on here. Don't get stuck. We just have to try > to find a theory that fits all the circumstantial evidence, not the > other way around. > > Arthur We are made in the image of God, and therefore have a trinity nature. Spirit, soul AND boby, are experientially understood as we become more sensitive to them. The soul is more bound to the earthly or bodily side of us, and is the seat of the emotions, as well as psychic capacities. No where NEAR the abilities, liberty and perception of our spirits. Even in your astrological chart, you see the threefold chord... Sun, Moon and Rising sign.... but in all/most of this, you must first believe, jump in, and then you learn to SEE... if you hang back in doubt you are reduced to the vanity of your mind's enmity to things of the spirit. Once subjected, the mind becomes a useful instrament, librarian, logician, for purposes that assist, but this is also true of the soul. There is a brilliant picture in the Book of Revelation of a woman clothed in the sun, which designates our spirit, and therein her being dominated, escorted, driven by it.... the moon under her feet, which is the soul subjected to her spirit's dominion, and made subserviently useful.... this is part of our evolution out of soulish, psychic ranges that many don't even recognize until familiar with our vast capacities. We are all involved in a wondrous adventure in this magnificent though devestating School of Hard Knocks....and of course, things that go bump in the night! Happy trails.... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:11:34 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 34 Message-ID: <357591D6.39B3@mcleodusa.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3572e453.37213461@news.eunet.no> <3575911C.490C@mcleodusa.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-180.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) themissinglink wrote: > > Arthur Engh wrote: I can't take that to mean that we are supposed to have two > > or more "souls", so I think the body/soul theory is much too limiting > > to explain what's going on here. Don't get stuck. We just have to try > > to find a theory that fits all the circumstantial evidence, not the > > other way around. > > > > Arthur > > We are made in the image of God, and therefore have a trinity nature. > Spirit, soul AND boby, are experientially understood as we become more > sensitive to them. The soul is more bound to the earthly or bodily side > of us, and is the seat of the emotions, as well as psychic capacities. > No where NEAR the abilities, liberty and perception of our spirits. Even > in your astrological chart, you see the threefold chord... Sun, Moon and > Rising sign.... but in all/most of this, you must first believe, jump > in, and then you learn to SEE... if you hang back in doubt you are > reduced to the vanity of your mind's enmity to things of the spirit. > Once subjected, the mind becomes a useful instrament, librarian, > logician, for purposes that assist, but this is also true of the soul. > There is a brilliant picture in the Book of Revelation of a woman > clothed in the sun, which designates our spirit, and therein her being > dominated, escorted, driven by it.... the moon under her feet, which is > the soul subjected to her spirit's dominion, and made subserviently > useful.... this is part of our evolution out of soulish, psychic ranges > that many don't even recognize until familiar with our vast capacities. > We are all involved in a wondrous adventure in this magnificent though > devestating School of Hard Knocks....and of course, things that go bump > in the night! Happy trails.... Oh yes, and upon her head was a crown of twelve stars..... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:05:06 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 69 Message-ID: <35759DFB.356@mcleodusa.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3572382E.F0F5E20@soundsculpture.com> <3573065f.45930545@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-180.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > On Sun, 31 May 1998 23:12:14 -0600, Ken > wrote: > > >The soul does not and never has resided in the body. During an > >in-body-experience the soul is in tune with the physical brain and > >during an OBE it is tuned into another source of input which may > >describe an event a million miles away. In this case the soul no more > >travels from the body to this location any more than changing channels > >on your TV from "LA Law" to "Laverne and Shirley" means you are > >traveling cross country. > > Right! Assume that this is true. Does this mean that we are constantly > swimming in a sea of "psychic impressions"? Do we make those > impressions ourselves? How do we pick which impressions are beneficial > for us or are they picked for us? If we are only physical beings, > would our "mental projections" or thoughts create an electromagnetic > field or a field of some other kind thereby creating what some people > call the Akashic Records? If we think long enough and hard enough on > something will it on some level be created for others to experience? > If so there wouldn't be a need for a soul to come from somewhere but > we would sort of create one for ourselves in the prosess of growing up > and experiencing life. > > Arthur This is an excellent point... but it is beyond mental, and points to the dilemma of our being dominated by soul. The akashic records are a vast library, historical impressions, as it were.... and many times, due to our soulish domination and affinity.... people will gravitate to kindred records and assume it is their own reincarnation being verified... when this may or may not be true. The phenomenon of affinity is psychic, and not necessarily led by the Spirit, which can lead to all kinds of miscalculations. The spiritual faculty to truly discern correctly is a missing link in many phases of our evolution homeward. There are many levels of facts, but facts don't necessarily lead to or tell the truth.... you've heard the old axiom, figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure? The trick is to discern rightly what you are perceiving, and that is the domain of the spirit. The reason we all collide in a maze of discrepencies are many levels of operation, and when we truly understand as we are understood, we will become the helpers of one another's faith.... firstfruits, as it were... generous in heart, and spiritual capacities strengthened by reason of exercise.... the greatest, foremost, and crowning eternal being Love, which seems to get lost, or at least sorely lacking, in carnal striving, development and competition. Ultimately though, it is the Source, Objective, and evident sign of fulfillment.....by this shall they know them... Anyway, the true gifts of discerning rightly belong to the evolution and understanding of our spirits.... and in the end, as many as are led by the Spirit, these are the Sons of God... and again.... by this shall ye know them.... they will have love one for another, seeing eye to eye, not thrusting one another through, and they will lay down their lives one for another, and assist in the release of all who hunger, with no remaining evidence of the carnal nature which is in enmity with the things of the spirit, and cannot judge rightly nor know them, for they are indeed foolishness to them... but these mature ones, will move and have their being in mercy and assistance for all.... Love is the only true guage of our development, because selfishness of our lower states can hold its breath for a while, but it cannot successfully impersonate the Ultimate status of Love. Yet as we grow, and exercise ourselves in it, I think it does more to propel us on our courses as well as lending a hand that cooperates with the earth's groanings and travailings for us to come forth and create the real release of sonship manifest where we can truly recover creation from the grip of our shared futility. Upwards and Onwards, beloved brethren! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!199.224.117.12!news-xfer.epix.net!news1.epix.net!epix-news From: "Freestone Wilson" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:06:57 -0300 Organization: epix Internet Services Lines: 54 Message-ID: <6l4oei$6d6$1@news1.epix.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356E383D.BAE81DB0@flash.net> <357d4b0a.6918662@news.melbpc.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: itha-125ppp82.epix.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 John Fitzsimons wrote in message <357d4b0a.6918662@news.melbpc.org.au>... >On Thu, 28 May 1998 23:23:25 -0500, Jason Mason >wrote: > > >>This is very interesting.... I find it hard to imagine all events in the past and >>future co-existing but if I was capable of creating an OBE... How exactly would I go >>about viewing the past, present and future? > >< snip > > >You could ask your spirit guides to assist you. :-) > >Regards, John. > > **************************************************** > ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. > / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 > \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm > v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ > >=============== ============== time travel via OBE? --as i remember... on september 16th...i had a obe...to see a desolete column of truding REFUGEES...slowly walking along a road..leaving a somewhere with only the clothes on their backs. i heard someone talk about the "bad times"...and, the "currant date", was september23rd of 1999. they were commenting about the past...way back in 1996.."when all this began". hmm---i seemed to go to the future, to look back to a past, that was still ahead of me!! and..i think the prophetic dream was "wrong"..to boot!! unless these people were yugoslavians....this has not occurred. unless the Y war will go on until at least 1999!! obe--ing to a future-state..is fraught with interpetational problems..as the general nature of prophecies deals with warnings to people..where the warnings are given to effect CHANGE..in these people; by their nature..prophetic visions often do not come true!! Interesting idea, though...to go into the one's past..in an obe-state..to warn one's self...so that a change can be made...my mind aches!! how about Robert Monroe's book.."far Jouneys"??? he does essentuially that... freestone ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:26:25 +0200 Lines: 138 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t1o204p4.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t1o204p4.telia.com Message-ID: <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news-uk.wisper.net!peer.news-uk.wisper.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-stkh.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t1o204p4.telia.com Hi. I know fairly much about time travels...... Based on my education is physics I can only say that physical time travel is impossible. That supersonic aircraft experiment is a well known fact in the physics community, I guess you have heard about Einstein. Well, he says that time is relevant. The closer you get to the speed of light, the more the time slows down. And when you travel at the speed of light you may get to a certain place in the universe within seconds. But reaching the speed of light is impossible, your mass will become infinite when you reach the speed of light. Enough about that, when if you want to time travel, then you have to do it mentally. In dreams, obe you may travel in the past and the future. A lot of people can do it, even you may do it with some training. I have also heard about particles that may travel faster than light. What these particles do is to travel to the future. Not sure if this is true, just read about it a couple of times.... As for changing the past, well, not sure if that is possible. Wells Family Fun wrote in message <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca>... >Hmmmm.... I've thought long and hard on this subject oftimes, and here's my opinion. >Bear with me if I get too philosophical. :-) >Time Travel is, essentially, impossible for the three-dimensional creatures that we >are. Trying to move in time would like a side-scrolling video game character trying to >move "out" of the screen, towards the user. It can't be by done by us. >Now, however, there is a viable argument, and that is, time has actually been slowed by >supersonic aircraft. For anyone who doesn't know of this experiment, I'll describe >what I remember of it: Two atomic clocks where synchronized, then one of the clocks >was set in a supersonic airplane and flown around the world (?) really really fast. >The other clock stayed on the ground, and when the plane landed and they compared the >two clocks, the terrestrial clock was a few thousandths of a second faster or something >like that. So, this poses the argument that maybe three-dimensional beings such as >ourselves can, if not exactly move through time, at least step "outside" of time. >Now, let's say that time travel is, with certainty possible. It would still be >impossible to change the past. For our first example, let's say I went back in time >and released a virus at the dawn of man that wiped out the human race. No more >people. Therefore, man could not have evolved to point of being capable of time >travel. Therefore, I could not have travelled back in time and changed the past. >Therefore, I did nothing. O'kay, now let's discuss changing something more feasible, >like one's own past, such as atoning for past mistakes or making better choices or some >such thing. As long as one's actions in the past didn't effect time travel >capabilities in the future, such an idea should be possible. For my next example, >let's say I went back in time and helped Hitler win WWII. Not that I'm a Nazi or >anything, but just for use of a world-wide situation. How I helped him is >unimportant. What is important is the fact that as soon as I changed the past by >guaranteeing Hitler's victory, I would never remember changing the past. Not a single >human being on the planet would have the slightest inkling that in another reality, >Hitler didn't win. I would have grown up in a world ruled by Nazis, and would never >have know anything different. This is another argument against time travel, although >in a completely different way. How do we know people aren't changing the past every >day? > As to how OBE's fit into this, I haven't got a clue. :-) > >Thanx for listening to my opinion. Pick it apart if you like, I'm always in the mood >for philosophy. :-) > >Miragio > >Kevin Colquitt wrote: > >> When you asked the questions below... I get the impression that you think that all >> events in both past, present and future are laid in some sequential time line. >> This maybe true to some extent but (I was trying to hint :) ) there is a level >> consciousness (or a particular peak in consciousness) where you could experience >> time in different ways. In this actuality, events in past, present and future could >> co-exists. The rules would then change for the individual who managed to achieve >> this state. Not only would he see the past, present and future that he knows but >> also probable pasts, presents and futures. >> >> Once upon a time people believed the world was flat. But of course this wasn't the >> case. The same is of Time and Space. >> >> Kevin >> Peter Bennett wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'm not an expert on time travel. >> > >> > If you went back to do something to yourself in the past, wouldn't it >> > change the present? And if it doesn't change the present, where did >> > the change go? Or how do we know we aren't affected by the change >> > already? >> > >> > Would there be a way to verify if you contacted yourself in the past? >> > >> > The future must already have occured at the time you went back to >> > contact yourself. >> > >> > Regards >> > Peter > > > ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:45:45 +0200 Lines: 88 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t1o204p4.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t1o204p4.telia.com Message-ID: <3575b5b3.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t1o204p4.telia.com I have also heard that the we lose some weight when we die. But I can't seem to remember the exact weight. (I will maybe remember where I read this under deep hypnosis or in a lucid dream, I will soon have a lucid dream, so we will soon find out) The Monroe institute have done some research on this, and what they found out is that the soul weights 3 ounces/85 grams. I think that was the same weight as the weight we loose when our body dies. I think this weight is transformed to energy. So it is a lot of energy leaving our body: E = mc^2 When we leave our bodies, and just travel as pure energy we can not only just more in space, but in time as well. Lars Good to see that I'm not the only guy from Norway here. Arthur Engh wrote in message <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no>... >> This is probably one of the closest plausible explanations for what occurs >>during an OBE. It feels like you're on the right track. Many people >>overlook the fact that during OBEs many physical objects are misplaced, >>altered, or non-existent. I wonder (being that our physical body occupies >>it) whether we are able to penetrate our current physical reality at all ... >>but merely get a carbon copy closest to what we know. If this is the case, >>our chances at "proving" OBEs by comparing them to the physical are severely >>limited (which certainly seems to be true). We need a different basis of >>establishing validity. > >>Along this line, I recall an OBE I had earlier this year ... a rather >>lengthy one, where I visited my boss and his family. Although the OBE took >>place in March, the scene during the visit took place close to Halloween. >>His older daughter I knew immediately, but his younger daughter was a >>different person entirely. > >The paragraph above got me thinking... What actually happens during an >OBE? As the name implies it is assumed that something moves out of the >body and goes somewhere else in the physical world. If this is true it >must be possible to measure whatever it is as it leaves the body and >returns as it would have to have some mass. I'm aware of scientific >experiments conducted on the dying where apparently the body loses a >significant amount of weight at the moment of death but as far as I >know nothing concrete has come out of these studies. If one were to >assume that what apparently leaves the body at death and in OBEs is >"the soul" and this "soul" had a measurable presence in the physical >universe I can see no reason why this "soul" while inspecting the >inside of lets say another house would get interior details wrong. >There's also the question of passing time. You say that your OBE was a >lengthy one. Is the timeframe in the OBE-state exactly the same as in >the physical world? What if an OBE experience goes to a house and >spends two hours there as measured by the clock on the wall of that >house and comes back to his body just to find out that ten minutes >have passed? > >I don't think that OBEs are the "soul" simply moving itself from place >to place in the physical world, there are just too many >inconsistencies. Why would there be a need to move physically at all? >I think OBEs are shifts in consciousness and not movements in the >physical universe. Therefore, what we see as inconsistencies really >are consistencies in another reality. I wonder if the timeline you saw >is just as real as ours? Did they notice you? > >Arthur Engh >arthur.engh@eunet.no > >>Some would argue that these inconsistencies are fabrications of the mind. >>And I do believe that lucid dream images can filter through into the OBE >>space. But I also believe that with time and a talented eye they are easily >>decipherable. > >> >>It's these other inconsistencies that seem etched into the solid OBE scene >>that lead me to believe that what you say is true. >> >>Trish >> > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:30:52 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 35 Message-ID: <6l5467$8ld$1@gte1.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3571b35c.43936133@news.eunet.no> <6kss1h$lc2$1@gte2.gte.net> <3572e21c.36647012@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust250.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50DC54155DFCDD64CC48491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > On Sun, 31 May 1998 20:13:37 -0400, Trish Pike > wrote: > > >> What if two people decided to go OOB to the same physical place at the > >> same time and sort of try to meet and tune into each others reality? > > > >It's been tried, with very little success. Let's say we are able to move within an > >infinite number of planes existing virtually simultaneously ... but not be able to > >enter the physical plane as we know it because our body is occupying that > >space/time .... how do we determine which virtual plane is the correct one in > >which to meet? > > I don't know... I imagined that the closer you got to the same plane > the more substantial the other people would seem to be...? When you're > OOB do you notice if you can see through some things or people and not > others or do they have the same "substance"? > > Arthur I suppose it depends on the situation. I've come across people with a ghost like appearance, people who can see me, and others who can't. But the trouble is in jumping from what we could call one plane to another. It's not easily decipherable. Like turning your car on in the morning and the radio is already turned on. You're there. It's done. And I know that I haven't developed the ability to make a choice in what I'd like to tune in to. I'm not even sure if it's up to me to do the tuning. I may be peeking through a wormhole in time, but where it leads could be anywhere. Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:41:23 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 54 Message-ID: <6l54pu$8ld$2@gte1.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3571b35c.43936133@news.eunet.no> <6kss1h$lc2$1@gte2.gte.net> <3572e21c.36647012@news.eunet.no> <35758E83.69C1@mcleodusa.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust250.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: 550DC5C1139D4DD64C440412 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) themissinglink wrote: > Arthur Engh wrote: > > > > On Sun, 31 May 1998 20:13:37 -0400, Trish Pike > > wrote: > > > > >> What if two people decided to go OOB to the same physical place at the > > >> same time and sort of try to meet and tune into each others reality? > > > > > >It's been tried, with very little success. Let's say we are able to move within an > > >infinite number of planes existing virtually simultaneously ... but not be able to > > >enter the physical plane as we know it because our body is occupying that > > >space/time .... how do we determine which virtual plane is the correct one in > > >which to meet? > > > > I don't know... I imagined that the closer you got to the same plane > > the more substantial the other people would seem to be...? When you're > > OOB do you notice if you can see through some things or people and not > > others or do they have the same "substance"? > > > > Arthur > > A lot is related to the fact that we must rise in our vibrational levels > so that they will not have to come down as far in their vibrational > state to communicate; if you understand what I am saying. The more we > can ascend, the easier the communication will come for us. That is why > it helps to go into the deep changes of our diet, of our meditation, of > colonics and other aspects of the cleansing of the physical, soul and > spirit..... so that our level of living, our personal vibrational state, > will go up much higher. The only reason we do not see those in the realm > of spirit is purely because of their vibrational state, the level they > are abiding on. And of course, there are many abiding places, grosser > states of many dwelling in spirit regions even as we witness the same > variations on this earthly side. So the ease with which some gravitate > to lower or higher entities would have to be figured in here. What you say sounds good, in theory, but I'm not too sure about it. There are so many different varieties of people who are able to have OBEs, all coming from different spiritual places. An atheist can have an OBE, but a spiritual leader may not have a clue. I'm a firm believer that anyone who is willing to dedicate the time and effort, will be able to have one eventually. But I think it may have more to do with determination and patience rather than spirituality. At least with me, it doesn't account for my personal success .. because I'm not much of a spiritual person at all. Wouldn't you think that the same be true after acquiring success? Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:57:11 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 52 Message-ID: <6l5694$pqi$1@gte2.gte.net> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <35723484.CB6061EF@soundsculpture.com> <3572ea96.38817164@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust250.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50DC5435ADCCD9E51C98491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > On Sun, 31 May 1998 22:56:36 -0600, Ken > wrote: > > >> It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are > >> 2 different things this is no paradox. > >> > > > >Wrong!!!! Because it is your soul that is traveling at a high rate of > >speed and not your body, your soul would be *younger* than your physical > >body, not older. (This of course assumes you have a soul with mass > >which I don't subscribe to. But that's beside the point.) > > Right!!!! Now, we don't know what a "soul" is or if it exists at all, > at least not according to empirical evidence. The general assumption > is that we have one body and one "soul", which I find incredibly > simplistic. Robert Monroe for instance talks about leaving his body > and then leaving this next "body" too. Which one of these "bodies" > would be the "soul" in the traditional meaning of the word and what > then is the second "body"? Or do we have two, three or an infinite > number of these "bodies"? Mr Monroe seems to indiciate that for each > time he went out of one of these "bodies" he removed himself further > from the physical world. He would then have several "bodies" each one > younger than the next. And what about animals and plants? Do they have > one or many "souls" and do any of them travel? I don't think we have > enough circumstantial evidence to even begin to form an informed > opinion or at least reach any firm conclusion. All we can do for now > is collect information. By the way, how could you have a soul without > mass? > > Arthur Not only that, but many people believe that dreams (lucid and non) and OBEs are simply the same thing interpreted differently. Well it's a well known fact that all mammals dream (all but the bottle nosed dolphin .. for some reason we haven't discerned yet). If dreams are part of a collective unconscious, and souls are the process of defining them .. then all mammals must have souls as well. How are animals to have separate souls if they are not even consciously aware? They have no real concept of "I". It seems that a redefining of what a soul is should be in order. As well as recognizing the theory that OBEs and dreams are quite different. Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 04 Jun 1998 00:00:18 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3572e453.37213461@news.eunet.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) writes: > >Actually he isn't right. It would not make "_you_ older than _you_" > >(and as such be a paradoxon). > > > >It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are > >2 different things this is no paradox. Correct above to soul younger than body, mea culpa. > >In fact if the occultists are right and souls pre-exist their bodies, > >then your soul is already older. Think of your body being older than > >the clothes you are wearing, doesn't give any problems. > > I'm just speculating. You are stating that the "soul" and the body are > two different things. Since there is no empirical evidence for that I > would have to say that you are just stating a dogma. In fact, if we Well actually I was following up on an post in which someone asked of the consequences of missfiting age of soul and body after soul travel. As they were assuming an separate soul (how else could it travel independantly?) and I was pointing out an error in their conclusion I naturally pointed it out from an separate soul viewpoint. A for whether I believe in an separate soul, you have in the meantime posted an followup to an post in which I detailled my viewpoint. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 04 Jun 1998 00:10:47 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3570732E.2DBFD2BA@bellsouth.net> <3572fd7a.43653046@news.eunet.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) writes: > On 01 Jun 1998 00:35:34 +0200, Neil Franklin > wrote: > >In the Einsteinian description of cosmology > >time is regarded as an equivalent of time. Ouch, that should have been "...equivalent of space.". > What? You dropped this bit: > > Think of the Pythagoras distance = root of length sqare + width sqare > > in 3d you must add heigh sqare before doing the root > > in 4d you must also add time multiplied with light speed and then sqared > > I wasn't interested enough to memorise the rest :-). I really don't know any more on this one, it was simply an formula I read in an borrowed book, about 10-15 years ago. And the author claimed it to be important in simplifying calculations that Einsteins Relativity allowed time to be converted to an 4th space coordinate. > Quote from my encyclopedia (badly translated from Norwegian): "A > continuing this to a room with more than three dimensions. As well as > you can build up a plane geometry in two dimensions and a space > geometry in three, you can build a geometry in n dimensions." See my hypercube remarks in an other post. > Nothing here is said about time other than that a non-euclidian > four-dimensional geometry has become invaluable for the development of > the theory of relativity. The theory of curved space that would be. Important as it gets rid of the "where are the walls of space, what are they of, what's outside" discussion, the same as an curved plane (a ball) gets rid of any edges. How this fits with the time=4th dimension I do not know. Perhaps time becomes 5th. Perhaps 4-d space/time must be curved around an 5th dimension (the second seems more logical to me, as it also gets rid of the "begin of time" boundry, same as the "wall of space"). But really, here my physics/cosmology really is not just out of its depths, but more stranded on the beach. > I think I'll go to the library tomorrow and > check the Encyclopedia Britannica... :) I wish you luck with that one, post if you find something. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 04 Jun 1998 00:18:06 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3573023a.44869596@news.eunet.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) writes: > On 31 May 1998 23:25:19 +0200, Neil Franklin > wrote: > > >At the moment I, due to reading about ghosts, tend te be slightly more > >on the separate soul side, but I often when writing pick the one > >easier to write from. > > Yes, I understand the problem. Whenever I think I have figured > something out some pesky little fact pops up and ruins everything. Well I actually had not fixed on something, so I did not get the blues bit. I just have to learn to live with uncertiancy. > >> Yes. I seem to remember having seen somewhere a picture of a > >> four-dimensional object in a three-dimensional space. It looked like a > >> picture of a dice inside a dice. > > > >An 4 dimensional Hypercube. Actually this is just an representation, > >not how 4 dimensional really looks. It uses an trick, that our eyes > >are really 2 dimensional but manage to see an 3 dimensional world by > >using projection to flatten it. An hypercube simply flattens more > >dimensions. > > I don't see how time comes into the picture yet Well above was just an description of 4-d geometry, independant of its usage. > because I don't > understand how you would or could flatten time but I'll try the > Encyclopedia Britannica tomorrow and see if I can wrap my head around > the problem. How the flattening works I don't know either. My greatest problem is that no matter how many clever > mathematical expressions one uses I don't get it until I can visualize > it in my head and thereby understand it. That is what gets me also. What does multiplying time with light speed mean in the context of calculating distances. The only thing I see is that thing near in time (1 second is nothing) are very far apart in 4-d space/time (1 light second is 300 million metres). -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!194.168.4.5!news7-gui.server.cableol.net!newsfeed.cableol.net!not-for-mail From: Alex Hunsley Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 00:48:46 +0100 Organization: Not much Lines: 78 Message-ID: <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.68.14 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Lars Rune Foleide wrote: > Hi. > I know fairly much about time travels...... > Based on my education is physics I can only say that > physical time travel is impossible. On the contrary, there have been papers published on how exactly it would be feasible totravel back in time.These papers descibe methods that are based on up-to-date (relativistic) physics. The paper that comes to mind is by a guy Frank J Tippler, entitled something like "Massive Rotating Volumes and Closed Timelike Loops". His plan for a time machine involves smoehow making an object in space with massive mass (such 3/4 neutron stars shoved together). If you can make such an object, then the idea is that you can fly around the object and in the process travel backwards in time. This is possible because the gravitational field is warped heavily around the large mass, and while flying through it, your sense of the 'direction' of normal time is deviated from the what people further away see as time. When this sense of time direction is disturbed by the field enough, it is possible to do manouvres that entail actually going backwards in time! (Technically: the gravitational field tips over the light cones in the vicinity. Tip a light cone over enough and you can do legal movements that do not exceed the speed of light in that cone, but entail going back in time in reference to 'normality' away from the large mass.) Of course, this is theoretically possible, but there may be 'undoable' practicalities that make it impossible. An interesting aspect of this time machine is that it does not allow you to go back to a time BEFORE the machine itself was made. (Because you're relying on the machine/mass to coninue your strange path in space/time!) And I bet you always wondered why we weren't being bombarded by humans from the future saying 'hi' . . . . . this could be the reason. Interesting thing is that there are .almost. naturally occuring machines of this nature . . . there are neutron stars spinning at a high rate, one of which has been one documented that is spinning at only half the speed required to make it into a Tippler time machine thang.... > That supersonic aircraft experiment is a well known fact in > the physics community, I guess you have heard about Einstein. > Well, he says that time is relevant. > The closer you get to the speed of light, the more the time slows > down. Accurately, the faster I go relative to you, the slower *to you* my clock appears to go. Tome, my clock working just fine. Although to me the universe looks curiously squashed in the direction of my travel... (at light speed, it would look like a pancake). The slower clock/pancake effects are complementing each other. About the whole paradox thing... apparent paradoxes aren't really enough to decry time travel, since our reasoning about paradoxes makes some large assumptions. For instance, the old "I go back and kill my grandfather" paradox isn't such a big problem if you allow for the idea of parallel / many universes.... at some point of my going back, one universe may bifurcate into two or more (many possibilities). One universe has me going back and killing grandfather, and the other just has me disappearing, having not harmed my uber-pater in that universe. cheerio alex ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com><356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au><356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca><356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no><356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net><356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net><35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:15:02 +0200 Lines: 53 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p48.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p48.telia.com Message-ID: <357611d9.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.ecrc.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p48.telia.com Your soul will not be more older than your body, the soul will be younger than your body. Things that are in motion will have time that are slower compared to that not in motion. And the faster the other object moves, the bigger will the time-difference be. But our soul is just energy, so I don't know if that counts... Neil Franklin wrote in message ... >Trish Pike writes: >> > This also opens up another interesting paradox. If the "soul" travels >> > out of the body and moves in the physical world it would have to have >> > mass and therefore physical laws would have an effect. If this "soul" >> > were travelling at high speed this "soul" would actually be operating >> > in a different timeline than the body behind in the bed! How is it >> > possible to be younger than yourself?! :) >> >> Lawdalmighty Arthur you're right! Not only that, but how would we evenbe able to >> enter the body again? > >Actually he isn't right. It would not make "_you_ older than _you_" >(and as such be a paradoxon). > >It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are >2 different things this is no paradox. > >In fact if the occultists are right and souls pre-exist their bodies, >then your soul is already older. Think of your body being older than >the clothes you are wearing, doesn't give any problems. > > >> > Interesting! What if two OOB experiences decided to meet and exchange >> > information in the out of body state and compared notes when they woke >> > up? That would be fascinating reading! >> Sure would be. But with so many different dimensions, tuning in to the same >> frequency would be extremely difficult. How could we even attempt to try it? > >This experiment is actually being run by some members of this news >group! The results up to now can be found at: > >http://members.tripod.com/~Frodpod/obemain > > >-- >private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ >office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ >WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <35723484.CB6061EF@soundsculpture.com> <3572ea96.38817164@news.eunet.no> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:21:01 +0200 Lines: 43 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p48.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p48.telia.com Message-ID: <3576127a.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.ecrc.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p48.telia.com The evidence is out there, you just have to find it... You ask: How do you have a soul without mass? We lose weight when we OBE and when we die, that is mass lost from our body. Mass that are being transferred into energy and is leaving the body. So our soul weights 3 ounces/85 grams.... Arthur Engh wrote in message <3572ea96.38817164@news.eunet.no>... >On Sun, 31 May 1998 22:56:36 -0600, Ken >wrote: > >>> It would make your _soul_ more older than your _body_. As these are >>> 2 different things this is no paradox. >>> >> >>Wrong!!!! Because it is your soul that is traveling at a high rate of >>speed and not your body, your soul would be *younger* than your physical >>body, not older. (This of course assumes you have a soul with mass >>which I don't subscribe to. But that's beside the point.) > >Right!!!! Now, we don't know what a "soul" is or if it exists at all, >at least not according to empirical evidence. The general assumption >is that we have one body and one "soul", which I find incredibly >simplistic. Robert Monroe for instance talks about leaving his body >and then leaving this next "body" too. Which one of these "bodies" >would be the "soul" in the traditional meaning of the word and what >then is the second "body"? Or do we have two, three or an infinite >number of these "bodies"? Mr Monroe seems to indiciate that for each >time he went out of one of these "bodies" he removed himself further >from the physical world. He would then have several "bodies" each one >younger than the next. And what about animals and plants? Do they have >one or many "souls" and do any of them travel? I don't think we have >enough circumstantial evidence to even begin to form an informed >opinion or at least reach any firm conclusion. All we can do for now >is collect information. By the way, how could you have a soul without >mass? > >Arthur ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3573023a.44869596@news.eunet.no> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:45:33 +0200 Lines: 45 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p48.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p48.telia.com Message-ID: <3576192b.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p48.telia.com Don DeGracia will tell you that we have 5 bodies. More can be read here: http://www.execpc.com/~mholmes/do-obe/do-obe.html Arthur Engh wrote in message <3573023a.44869596@news.eunet.no>... >On 31 May 1998 23:25:19 +0200, Neil Franklin > wrote: > >>At the moment I know of no conclusive evidence to prefer one >>hypothesis over the other. That is why I an desiring to do OBE, to see >>if that leads to evidence. >> >>At the moment I, due to reading about ghosts, tend te be slightly more >>on the separate soul side, but I often when writing pick the one >>easier to write from. > >Yes, I understand the problem. Whenever I think I have figured >something out some pesky little fact pops up and ruins everything. >Like when I thought we had one body and one soul and along comes >Robert Monroe describing how he left his physical body and then left >his "soul" or "astral body" so that he in practice had to have at >least three bodies. >> >> >>> Yes. I seem to remember having seen somewhere a picture of a >>> four-dimensional object in a three-dimensional space. It looked like a >>> picture of a dice inside a dice. >> >>An 4 dimensional Hypercube. Actually this is just an representation, >>not how 4 dimensional really looks. It uses an trick, that our eyes >>are really 2 dimensional but manage to see an 3 dimensional world by >>using projection to flatten it. An hypercube simply flattens more >>dimensions. > >I don't see how time comes into the picture yet because I don't >understand how you would or could flatten time but I'll try the >Encyclopedia Britannica tomorrow and see if I can wrap my head around >the problem. My greatest problem is that no matter how many clever >mathematical expressions one uses I don't get it until I can visualize >it in my head and thereby understand it. > >Arthur > ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 06:11:52 +0200 Lines: 126 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p48.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p48.telia.com Message-ID: <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p48.telia.com Yeah, yeah, yeah...... I have heard about this. And there is also these theories about wormholes... And placing huge planets like Jupiter in a black holes to open it. The only problem is that all of this is almost impossible to do. So I will stick to that physical time travel is impossible, at least during our lives.....(Well, I will live forever so who knows?) If you traveled at the speed of light away from me then your clock would seem to stop in my view, but this is because the light will never make it to me. But I'm not sure if this is true. Light has the same speed no matter what. So if you moved away form me with the speed of light then I would see the that your clock would go twice as slow as mine would. When 1 minute has past on earth then 2 minutes would have past on your clock, but to you 1 minute would have past. But this is just because you are moving away form me with the speed of light. But does this add up with what Einstein is saying? I tend to believe in many universes when I comes to explaining time travels.... Alex Hunsley wrote in message <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk>... >Lars Rune Foleide wrote: > >> Hi. >> I know fairly much about time travels...... >> Based on my education is physics I can only say that >> physical time travel is impossible. > >On the contrary, there have been papers published on how exactly it would be >feasible totravel back in time.These papers describe methods that are based on >up-to-date (relativistic) >physics. The paper that comes to mind is by a guy Frank J Tippler, entitled >something like >"Massive Rotating Volumes and Closed Timelike Loops". His plan for a time >machine involves >somehow making an object in space with massive mass (such 3/4 neutron stars >shoved together). >If you can make such an object, then the idea is that you can fly around the >object and in the >process travel backwards in time. This is possible because the gravitational >field is warped >heavily around the large mass, and while flying through it, your sense of the >'direction' of normal time is deviated from the what people further away see as >time. When this sense of time direction >is disturbed by the field enough, it is possible to do maneuvers that entail >actually going >backwards in time! (Technically: the gravitational field tips over the light >cones in the vicinity. >Tip a light cone over enough and you can do legal movements that do not exceed >the speed >of light in that cone, but entail going back in time in reference to 'normality' >away from the large mass.) > >Of course, this is theoretically possible, but there may be 'undoable' >practicalities >that make it impossible. An interesting aspect of this time machine is that it >does not allow you >to go back to a time BEFORE the machine itself was made. (Because you're relying >on the machine/mass to continue your strange path in space/time!) And I bet you >always wondered why >we weren't being bombarded by humans from the future saying 'hi' . . . . . this >could be the reason. > >Interesting thing is that there are .almost. naturally occurring machines of this >nature . . . there are >neutron stars spinning at a high rate, one of which has been one documented that >is spinning at only half the speed required to make it into a Tippler time >machine thang.... > >> That supersonic aircraft experiment is a well known fact in >> the physics community, I guess you have heard about Einstein. >> Well, he says that time is relevant. >> The closer you get to the speed of light, the more the time slows >> down. > >Accurately, the faster I go relative to you, the slower *to you* my clock >appears to go. Tome, my clock working just fine. Although to me the universe >looks curiously squashed in the direction of my travel... (at light speed, it >would look like a pancake). The slower clock/pancake >effects are complementing each other. > >About the whole paradox thing... apparent paradoxes aren't really enough to >decry time travel, since our reasoning about paradoxes makes some large >assumptions. For instance, the old "I go back and kill my grandfather" paradox >isn't such a big problem if you allow for the idea of parallel / many >universes.... at some point of my going back, one universe may bifurcate into >two >or more (many possibilities). One universe has me going back and killing >grandfather, and the >other just has me disappearing, having not harmed my uber-pater in that >universe. > >cheerio > >alex > > > > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!194.168.4.5!news7-gui.server.cableol.net!newsfeed.cableol.net!not-for-mail From: Alex Hunsley Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 14:47:05 +0100 Organization: Not much Message-ID: <3576A558.49F28EF0@tardis.ed.ac.uk> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.61.232 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (WinNT; I) Lines: 50 Lars Rune Foleide wrote: > The only problem is that all of this is almost impossible to do. Oh yes, it's all very unfeasible atm, but the tantalising question is: "is it possible that one day wecould do it?" > So I will stick to that physical time travel is impossible, at least > during our lives.....(Well, I will live forever so who knows?) Sounds like a fair assumption to me. > If you traveled at the speed of light away from me then your clock > would seem to stop in my view, but this is because the light > will never make it to me. > But I'm not sure if this is true. Light has the same speed no matter > what. Yeah, the whole relativity thing is based on the fact that light travels at constant speed c withrespect to everyone who's measuring it... > So if you moved away form me with the speed of light then > I would see the that your clock would go twice as slow as mine > would. When 1 minute has past on earth then 2 minutes would have > past on your clock, but to you 1 minute would have past. > But this is just because you are moving away form me with the speed > of light. But does this add up with what Einstein is saying? No, if I was going away from you at the speed of light, you would see my clock absolutely stopped dead, not at half speed. This is a an direct result of the fact in my first paragraph. For lower speeds, the clocks slows down a bit less. For example, for you to see my clock go at half speed, I'd have to travel at about 86% light speed. As far as the astral stuff goes, I would't assume too heavily that any such 'substance' is made of what we regard as 'normal' matter. There may be more to reailty that meets the eye, and as such, it might not be under influence of the normal laws of physics we know about. cheerio alex ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:44:27 +0200 Lines: 254 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t6o204p28.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t6o204p28.telia.com Message-ID: <3576dcb4.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t6o204p28.telia.com I'm glad that you decided to join us. I enjoyed your post a lot. But you are maybe wrong on one point. I just asked my dad, who had a university education in physics and has been a teacher most of his life. I ask him some questions about Einstein, and he told me that if you travel at the speed of light and return the clocks would be in sync again. He was in a bit hurry, so I didn't have much time to tell me why, so I will get back to this issue later on. I have also heard about this on TV once, so I'm not sure. And here is a suggestion, why don't we all right now stop using miles and start using meter instead. The same goes for Fahrenheit, inch, ounce and all those other illogical measurements.... Lars Shane Marsh wrote in message <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33>... >Hi > >I've never posted to this group before but I've lurked for a while. Thought >I'd join in on a few points that have been raised in this interesting >thread. Warning - this is a long post which deals with some complex physics >(with a bit of OBE) so it may not be for everyone. > >Lars Rune Foleide wrote in message <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com>... > >>If you traveled at the speed of light away from me then your clock >>would seem to stop in my view, but this is because the light >>will never make it to me. >>But I'm not sure if this is true. Light has the same speed no matter >>what. So if you moved away form me with the speed of light then >>I would see the that your clock would go twice as slow as mine >>would. When 1 minute has past on earth then 2 minutes would have >>past on your clock, but to you 1 minute would have past. >>But this is just because you are moving away form me with the speed >>of light. But does this add up with what Einstein is saying? > > >You're correct in stating that the speed of light is the same for everyone, >regardless of their motions or the motions of the source of light (i.e.. 2 >cars travelling towards each other at the speed of light does not equal 2 >times the speed of light). According to Einstein, it is impossible for >anything (physical) to travel at the speed of light. This is known as the >light barrier and it's due to the relationship between mass, energy and >time. > >Let's say you were watching a pulse of light move away from you. Light >travels at 186,000 miles per second, so if you were standing still, this >pulse of light would be moving away from you at a rate of 186,000 mps. Now >let's say you got into your rocket ship and decided to chase this pulse of >light. No matter how fast you travel, >you will never manage to reduce the pulse of light's recession - it would >always be moving away from you at 186,000 mps (even if you were travelling >at 99.9% of the speed of light). Why can't you just step on the accelerator >until you reach the speed of light? Because weird things begin to happen >when you travel at high speed. As your speed increases, your mass also >increases. As the light barrier is approached, the rocket ship and its >occupants get heavier and heavier so more and more energy is be required to >accelerate. To travel at the speed of light would mean that you would have >infinite mass (as far as I'm aware, Jenny Craig doesn't have a program to >reduce infinite mass) which, in turn would require infinite energy. This is >physically impossible which is why nothing can travel at the speed of light >(although the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox is an interesting phenomenon >without a solid explanation at this stage, but I won't get into that here). > >You (in the rocket ship) would not feel any heavier though. Instead, the >world around you would appear strangely distorted. Forward distances would >appear shrunken and it would appear that you are going faster and faster >because you would have less distance to travel in a given time. If you were >travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light, the sun would appear only 4 >million miles from Earth and you would reach it in 22 seconds. However, to >an observer on Earth, the sun is 93 million miles away and it would look >like it has taken you 8 minutes to reach the sun. You would think that the >astronaut would look back the Earth and see things moving at 22 times normal >speed but just the opposite is true - the Earth would appear to be moving 22 >times slower than normal - both the astronaut and the observer on Earth >would be observing each other moving 22 times slower relative to >themselves - strange but true. Therefore, it's impossible to say who is >moving slower or faster. Relativity assigns meaning to motion only relative >to other observers. > >When the rocket ship returns to Earth, the time dilation effect becomes >obvious - the astronaut and the Earth observer's times have been permanently >wrenched out of since. What may have only been a few hour's trip to the >astronaut would have taken days of Earth time. The Earth observer would now >appear (to the astronaut) to have aged a few days in the space of a few >hours. > >At only 1 mile per hour less than the speed of light, the time dilation >effect in increased by 18,000 times. At this speed, he (or she) would be >able to circumnavigate our entire galaxy in a few years but when he returns >to the Earth, he would find himself in the 4 thousandth century! Expanding >on this, *if* the astronaut did travel at the speed of light, he would >observe all of eternity (infinity) pass by (outside the ship). The physical >Universe would cease to exist (at least in the form that we know it). >However, as I already said, this is physically impossible which is why you >can theoretically travel forward in time but not backwards (according to the >laws of physics as we currently know them). > >Einstein's theories of relativity (there's actually 2 - the Special Theory >of Relativity (1905 - elastic time, antimatter, E=mc2, creation and >annihilation of matter) and the General Theory of Relativity (1915 - gravity >is due to space-time curvature, black holes, finite but unbounded Universe, >space and time smashing each other out of existence) have been proven over >and over again. Experiments with sub atomic particles travelling at >relativistic speeds have shown their lifespans to be increased in accordance >with Einstein's predictions and there is also the preiously mentioned >experiment in 1971 where 4 portable atomic clocks were flown around the >world - once eastwards and once westewards. When they returned, they were >compared to atomic clocks at the US Naval Observatory in Washington DC. The >eastbound clocks lost an average of 59 nanoseconds (billionths of a second) >and the westbound clocks gained 273 nanoseconds. The differences have to do >with a point in Einstein's theory concerning behavior of clocks travelling >in the same direction of the Earth's rotation or against it (gravity also >affects time - this was proven by 6 further atomic clock experiments in 1975 >and 1976). > >>I tend to believe in many universes when I comes to explaining time >>travels.... > > >The idea of multiple Universes was proposed by Hugh Everett in 1957 and >further developed by Bryce De Witt. Everett proposed that the world is >constantly splitting into countless near copies of itself - splitting itself >into ever expanding branches. Every sub atomic process has the power to >multiply the world and you are constantly being multiplied into separate >thinking, feeling human beings inhabiting other parallel universes, much >like the one we see around us. This seems bizarre but the proponents of this >theory (and remember, this is physics, not metaphysics) argue that the >splitting process is totally unobservable because the replicated >consciousness cannot communicate physically with each other and each >universe is completely disconnected from each other. Although each universe >may appear exactly alike, they are different on a subatomic level. And, >because there are billions upon billions of these universes being created >every fraction of a second, over time, these separate universes could drift >apart quite substantially - some universes may be near carbon copies of >our's and others may be full of black holes. In some, we may have already >extinguished the human race through nuclear war (or Earl and Bart may have >turned evil and killed each other). > >Although this theory (and it's only a theory) is not accepted by everyone, >it can't be said to be impossible. The universe can be described as a >superspace of universes - an infinity of multiple universes overlapping each >other. Our world may just be a projection of superspace or a 3 dimensional >slice though it. And, although physicists are generally unwilling to bring >consciousness into it, maybe we are constantly splitting into other >universes and the universe that we perceive as individuals depends on the >choices we make and where we choose to focus our consciousness. When people >OBE and perceive their bedrooms as slightly different to physical reality (a >window or a door out of place etc.) it could be explained by saying that >they've accidentally / randomly projected into one of these alternative >universes. > >The idea of multiple dimensions is not garbage but is a mathematical >possibility. Mathematically, these dimensions are easily handled, although >they are virtually impossible to visualize. However, mathematically any >extra dimensions (and I'm talking of special dimensions, not time) are >described as being perpendicular to the previous dimension. You could >theoretically have 4, 5, 100 or an infinity of dimensions. If 3 dimensions >can be described as left/right, up/down and depth, you could get some idea >of the 4th dimension by thinking in/out. The 5th dimension gets a bit beyond >the brain's ability to conceive but would probably be in/out of the in/out >(see what I mean). I have read accounts of NDE's where people described >viewing 9 or 10 dimensional space (things within things within things within >things etc.) but when they returned to their bodies, they lost the ability >to visualize it. > >Anyway, putting physics to one side for the time being, I read a book once >(can't remember which one) which came up with a metaphysical explanation for >the physical world looking different during OBE. He said that, during OBE, >we are not actually perceiving the physical world but a near carbon copy of >the physical world. On the astral plane (as well as other planes, thought >creates reality - you think it and it appears (instant karma). When an >individual creates a thoughtform for the first time, it doesn't have a great >deal of energy and will evaporate in time. So if you go out and create a >boogyman with your thoughts, it will eventually dissolve if you give it no >more thought. However, things that you think about all the time (such as the >appearance of your bedroom) will be more concrete, although still subject to >various discrepancies (because it's only you or your family that give power >to the thoughtform). The more people who perceive something to be a certain >way, the more concrete it will be and the less you will be able to change it >with your own thoughts. The author said that this is why well known places >public places are more concrete - there are numerous people who are giving >energy to thought of it being the way it is. You might even go on to say >that the physical world is only a conjured experience but appears concrete >because there are billions of people who are giving energy to idea of how >the world is - if there were no conscious observers, would the physical >world cease to exist or dissolve over time? If a tree falls in the Forrest >and there's nobody there, does it make a sound? (had to throw that one in). > >As far as time travel during OBE is concerned, I also read a book where the >author claimed he could do it. He said that, the further he went back in >time, the dimmer everything appeared until, eventually, everything was gray >and fog like. The further he traveled into the future, the brighter >everything appeared until, eventually, everything was too bright to >perceive - just bright white light. I have no idea whether this is true and, >despite the length of this thread, nobody has really said that they >regularly time travel during OBE (or how to do it). It's all just theory. > >I personally do not believe that you can travel back in time and alter >things in the physical universe. You may be able to travel back in time >(during OBE) and observe things, but not alter things (apart from maybe >communicating with others in the past who are also OBE'ing - I don't know >about that). The Universe (physical and non physical) operates according to >laws which cannot be broken. We may not know what all those laws are but >they are there (waiting to be discovered and understood). You don't have to >understand or believe in gravity to die from jumping out of a plane without >a parachute. Things may not always make sense but that's only because you >don't understand the laws governing them and, if it appears that a law has >been broken then that's only because you don't know of all the laws yet. > >If God or whatever created the Universe, it knows more than you can even >conceive of knowing (at this stage) and it would not create loopholes which >would allow the entire Universe to unravel. Einstein could never accept >quantum theory because he thought it challenges the idea of an ordered >Universe, but that's only because he (as brilliant as he was) didn't >understand the bigger picture and didn't understand that there may be >further discoveries made that will tie everything in together. After >relativity , he spent the remainder of his life unsuccessfully trying to >come up with the grand unification theory. However, I believe he was right >when he said "God does not play dice with the Universe". > >Shane Marsh > > > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.124.0.31!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:09:35 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 22 Message-ID: <3577535F.A0D3FD56@soundsculpture.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <35723484.CB6061EF@soundsculpture.com> <3572ea96.38817164@news.eunet.no> <3576127a.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-ppp-136-197.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Lars Rune Foleide wrote: > > The evidence is out there, you just have to find it... > > You ask: How do you have a soul without mass? > > We lose weight when we OBE and when we die, that is mass > lost from our body. Mass that are being transferred into energy > and is leaving the body. > > So our soul weights 3 ounces/85 grams.... The evidence that the body loses weight when it dies is very weak. I think there may have been 1 or 2 experiments done with very inprecise scales years ago. I would take this loss of weight thing with a grain of salt. I am not saying it needs to be discounted, only that there really hasn't been any modern controlled experiment to determine if there is a change in weight during death. I would love to see some serious research in this area as it would clear up a lot of things. Ken > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!coop.net!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:16:59 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 31 Message-ID: <3577551B.347A238F@soundsculpture.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <35723484.CB6061EF@soundsculpture.com> <3572ea96.38817164@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-ppp-136-197.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > On Sun, 31 May 1998 22:56:36 -0600, Ken > wrote: > > (This of course assumes you have a soul with mass > >which I don't subscribe to. But that's beside the point.) > > By the way, how could you have a soul without > mass? > > Arthur I may not have made my position clear. I dont think there is such a thing as a soul that resides in the physical body. I believe our sense of self comes from a universal consiousness that uses the physical body as a device to ground our sense of existance. Nothing leaves or enters the body, rather, the body connects or disconnects with the consciousness to give ourselves local awareness. Ken "The speed of time is one second per second." -unknown "Black holes are where God divided by zero." -unknown "Everything should be as simple as possible but not one bit simpler." -Albert Einstein ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!netnews.com!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!coop.net!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:34:31 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 77 Message-ID: <35775937.3F8A0103@soundsculpture.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <35706e41.50648849@news.eunet.no> <3572382E.F0F5E20@soundsculpture.com> <3573065f.45930545@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-ppp-136-197.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > On Sun, 31 May 1998 23:12:14 -0600, Ken > wrote: > > >The soul does not and never has resided in the body. During an > >in-body-experience the soul is in tune with the physical brain and > >during an OBE it is tuned into another source of input which may > >describe an event a million miles away. In this case the soul no more > >travels from the body to this location any more than changing channels > >on your TV from "LA Law" to "Laverne and Shirley" means you are > >traveling cross country. > > Right! Assume that this is true. Does this mean that we are constantly > swimming in a sea of "psychic impressions"? Possibly, or perhaps we are swimming in a sea of no impressions at all (void) except when given to us by the body/brain/senses or by other body/brain/senses or yet a third source of greater meaning. Do we make those > impressions ourselves? At least some of the impressions are most definitely from our physical bodies, the remainder from others and from the inherent intelligence of the univerese. > How do we pick which impressions are beneficial > for us or are they picked for us? When we are in our body of course the answer to this is obvious. When OBE I think we work as a greater intelligence determining what we can access. We don't always choose the best impressions however since we can be swayed by emotions. I think that practice and familiarity with OBE goes a long way in determining how we spend our time accessing what. > If we are only physical beings, > would our "mental projections" or thoughts create an electromagnetic > field or a field of some other kind thereby creating what some people > call the Akashic Records? I don't think so. Our thoughts are different than the electromagnetic spectrum. I think our thoughts are more closely related to the existance and lives of subatomic particals. The dance they do in and out of existance probably defines what thoughts are made of. EM may result from this, but I think its much deeper. > If we think long enough and hard enough on > something will it on some level be created for others to experience? This is a very hot topic, and the experiments continue..... > If so there wouldn't be a need for a soul to come from somewhere but > we would sort of create one for ourselves in the prosess of growing up > and experiencing life. No need to create a soul at all. It's not necessary to describe phycic experiences. We are a part of the pattern of universal motion. Our bodies interact with this giving our esoteric consciousness more basic form and individuality. But individuality is a huge illusion and is impossible if you really think about it. There is only one of us, thats it. We are not only connected, we are the same, we just don't know it. But the body is completely responsible for this illusion of individuality, make no qualms about that. Ken "The speed of time is one second per second." -unknown "Black holes are where God divided by zero." -unknown "Everything should be as simple as possible but not one bit simpler." -Albert Einstein ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!fci-se!fci!newsgate.tandem.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 21:37:59 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 9 Message-ID: <35776817.7E9D176B@soundsculpture.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-ppp-136-197.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Shane Marsh wrote: > > Hi > Shane Marsh Excellent post Shane, thanks. Ken ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.124.0.31!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 21:48:12 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 24 Message-ID: <35776A7C.F537E193@soundsculpture.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> <3576dcb4.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-ppp-136-197.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Lars Rune Foleide wrote: > > I'm glad that you decided to join us. > I enjoyed your post a lot. > > But you are maybe wrong on one point. > I just asked my dad, who had a university education > in physics and has been a teacher most of his life. I > ask him some questions about Einstein, and he told > me that if you travel at the speed of light and return > the clocks would be in sync again. > Lars, Shanes post on this was completely accurate. The clocks indeed would show different times. If you get a chance pick up a book (now out of print I believe but probably available at the library) called "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" by Lincoln Barnett. It's the most concise practical and pleasant read on Einsteins theories I've ever seen. Also I've seen a NG dedicated to Einsteins theories. I think its alt.physics.relativity or something like that. But do get the book. You will really enjoy it. It's better than fiction. And I guarantee you will read it more than once. Ken ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.124.0.31!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:04:15 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 42 Message-ID: <35776E3F.21CE74B5@soundsculpture.com> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> <357b31d9.3976697@news.melbpc.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-ppp-136-197.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) John Fitzsimons wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:52:17 +1000, "Shane Marsh" > wrote: > > < snip > > > >You're correct in stating that the speed of light is the same for everyone, > >regardless of their motions or the motions of the source of light (ie. 2 > >cars travelling towards each other at the speed of light does not equal 2 > >times the speed of light). According to Einstein, > > < snip > > > Let's see, two cars converging at 1MPH = 2MPH closing rate. > two cars converging at 1x speed of light does not = 2x > speed of light closing rate. > > Other than saying "Einstein said" do you have anything else to support > this theory ? > > Regards, John. Hi John, This is no longer considered a theory, it's considered a fact. It's been proven thousands of times in laboratories and in nature all over the world over the past 50 years. Actually it was first confirmed by the Michelson/Morley (sp) experiment in the early part of the century. Unfortunately it's not something that is taught in school except fleetingly which is why it is so unfamiliar to so many people. What a shame. It is something that is a very fundamental part of our reality. Ken "The speed of time is one second per second." -unknown "Everything should be as simple as possible but not one bit simpler." -Albert Einstein ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news2.melbpc.org.au!not-for-mail From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 23:44:04 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 59 Message-ID: <357a2f37.3302358@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3571b35c.43936133@news.eunet.no> <6kss1h$lc2$1@gte2.gte.net> <3572e21c.36647012@news.eunet.no> <35758E83.69C1@mcleodusa.net> <6l54pu$8ld$2@gte1.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: b2-40.melbpc.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:41:23 -0400, Trish Pike wrote: < snip > >themissinglink wrote: >> A lot is related to the fact that we must rise in our vibrational levels >> so that they will not have to come down as far in their vibrational >> state to communicate; if you understand what I am saying. The more we >> can ascend, the easier the communication will come for us. Only if one wants "positive" spirit communication/awareness. One does not need to "ascend" when OOB for example to be aware of "earthbound" entities. >> That is why >> it helps to go into the deep changes of our diet, of our meditation, of >> colonics and other aspects of the cleansing of the physical, soul and >> spirit..... so that our level of living, our personal vibrational state, >> will go up much higher. The only reason we do not see those in the realm >> of spirit is purely because of their vibrational state, the level they >> are abiding on. And of course, there are many abiding places, grosser >> states of many dwelling in spirit regions even as we witness the same >> variations on this earthly side. So the ease with which some gravitate >> to lower or higher entities would have to be figured in here. I agree that one can do things in the physical world to "raise our vibrations" but it should also be remembered that everyone has a "natural" level of vibratory rate that results in their ease in reaching that level while OOB. > What you say sounds good, in theory, but I'm not too sure about it. There are so >many different varieties of people who are able to have OBEs, all coming from >different spiritual places. An atheist can have an OBE, but a spiritual leader may >not have a clue. I'm a firm believer that anyone who is willing to dedicate the time and >effort, will be able to have one eventually. But I think it may have more to do with >determination and patience rather than spirituality. At least with me, it doesn't >account for my personal success .. because I'm not much of a spiritual person at all. From my reading of both your posts it seems that you may be both talking about different things. Themissinglink seems to be talking about where one goes while OOB while you are talking about the ability to go OOB. I agree with both points of view to a degree, particularly yours. Being able to go OOB has little to do with spirituality. Most psychic abilities have nothing to do with spirituality. Regards, John. **************************************************** ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ ###### From: "Shane Marsh" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:52:17 +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.45 Message-ID: <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.45 Lines: 209 Hi I've never posted to this group before but I've lurked for a while. Thought I'd join in on a few points that have been raised in this interesting thread. Warning - this is a long post which deals with some complex physics (with a bit of OBE) so it may not be for everyone. Lars Rune Foleide wrote in message <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com>... >If you traveled at the speed of light away from me then your clock >would seem to stop in my view, but this is because the light >will never make it to me. >But I'm not sure if this is true. Light has the same speed no matter >what. So if you moved away form me with the speed of light then >I would see the that your clock would go twice as slow as mine >would. When 1 minute has past on earth then 2 minutes would have >past on your clock, but to you 1 minute would have past. >But this is just because you are moving away form me with the speed >of light. But does this add up with what Einstein is saying? You're correct in stating that the speed of light is the same for everyone, regardless of their motions or the motions of the source of light (ie. 2 cars travelling towards each other at the speed of light does not equal 2 times the speed of light). According to Einstein, it is impossible for anything (physical) to travel at the speed of light. This is known as the light barrier and it's due to the relationship between mass, energy and time. Let's say you were watching a pulse of light move away from you. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, so if you were standing still, this pulse of light would be moving away from you at a rate of 186,000 mps. Now let's say you got into your rocket ship and decided to chase this pulse of light. No matter how fast you travel, you will never manage to reduce the pulse of light's recession - it would always be moving away from you at 186,000 mps (even if you were travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light). Why can't you just step on the accelerator until you reach the speed of light? Because wierd things begin to happen when you travel at high speed. As your speed increases, your mass also increases. As the light barrier is approached, the rocket ship and its occupants get heavier and heavier so more and more energy is be required to accelerate. To travel at the speed of light would mean that you would have infinite mass (as far as I'm aware, Jenny Craig doesn't have a program to reduce infinite mass) which, in turn would require infinite energy. This is physically impossible which is why nothing can travel at the speed of light (although the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox is an interesting phenomonen without a solid explanation at this stage, but I won't get into that here). You (in the rocket ship) would not feel any heavier though. Instead, the world around you would appear strangely distorted. Forward distances would appear shrunken and it would appear that you are going faster and faster because you would have less distance to travel in a given time. If you were travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light, the sun would appear only 4 million miles from Earth and you would reach it in 22 seconds. However, to an observer on Earth, the sun is 93 million miles away and it would look like it has taken you 8 minutes to reach the sun. You would think that the astronaut would look back the Earth and see things moving at 22 times normal speed but just the opposite is true - the Earth would appear to be moving 22 times slower than normal - both the astronaut and the observer on Earth would be observing each other moving 22 times slower relative to themselves - strange but true. Therefore, it's impossible to say who is moving slower or faster. Relativity assigns meaning to motion only relative to other observers. When the rocket ship returns to Earth, the time dilation effect becomes obvious - the astronaut and the Earth observer's times have been permanently wrenched out of sinc. What may have only been a few hour's trip to the astronaut would have taken days of Earth time. The Earth observer would now appear (to the astronaut) to have aged a few days in the space of a few hours. At only 1 mile per hour less than the speed of light, the time dilation effect in increased by 18,000 times. At this speed, he (or she) would be able to circumnavigate our entire galaxy in a few years but when he returns to the Earth, he would find himself in the 4 thousandth century! Expanding on this, *if* the astronaut did travel at the speed of light, he would observe all of eternity (infinity) pass by (outside the ship). The physical Universe would cease to exist (at least in the form that we know it). However, as I already said, this is physically impossible which is why you can theoretically travel forward in time but not backwards (according to the laws of physics as we currently know them). Einstein's theories of relativity (there's actually 2 - the Special Theory of Relativity (1905 - elastic time, antimatter, E=mc2, creation and anihilation of matter) and the General Theory of Relativity (1915 - gravity is due to spacetime curvature, black holes, finite but unbounded Universe, space and time smashing each other out of existence) have been proven over and over again. Experiments with sub atomic particles travelling at relativistic speeds have shown their lifespans to be increased in accordance with Einstein's predictions and there is also the preiously mentioned experiment in 1971 where 4 portable atomic clocks were flown around the world - once eastwards and once westewards. When they returned, they were compared to atomic clocks at the US Naval Observatory in Washington DC. The eastbound clocks lost an average of 59 nanoseconds (billionths of a second) and the westbound clocks gained 273 nanoseconds. The differences have to do with a point in Einstein's theory concerning behaviour of clocks travelling in the same direction of the Earth's rotation or against it (gravity also affects time - this was proven by 6 further atomic clock experiments in 1975 and 1976). >I tend to believe in many universes when I comes to explaining time >travels.... The idea of multiple Universes was proposed by Hugh Everett in 1957 and further developed by Bryce De Witt. Everett proposed that the world is constantly splitting into coutless near copies of itself - splitting itself into ever expanding branches. Every sub atomic process has the power to multiply the world and you are constantly being multiplied into separate thinking, feeling human beings inhabiting other parallel universes, much like the one we see around us. This seems bizarre but the proponents of this theory (and remember, this is physics, not metaphysics) argue that the splitting process is totally unobservable because the replicated consciousness cannot communicate physically with each other and each universe is completely disconnected from each other. Although each universe may appear exactly alike, they are different on a subatomic level. And, because there are billions upon billions of these universes being created every fraction of a second, over time, these separate universes could drift apart quite substantially - some universes may be near carbon copies of our's and others may be full of black holes. In some, we may have already extinguished the human race through nuclear war (or Earl and Bart may have turned evil and killed each other). Although this theory (and it's only a theory) is not accepted by everyone, it can't be said to be impossible. The universe can be described as a superspace of universes - an infinity of multiple universes overlapping each other. Our world may just be a projection of superpace or a 3 dimensional slice though it. And, although physicists are generally unwilling to bring consciousness into it, maybe we are constantly splitting into other universes and the universe that we perceive as individuals depends on the choices we make and where we choose to focus our consciousness. When people OBE and perceive their bedrooms as slightly different to physical reality (a window or a door out of place etc.) it could be explained by saying that they've accidently / randomly projected into one of these alternative universes. The idea of multiple dimensions is not garbage but is a mathematical possibility. Mathematically, these dimensions are easily handled, although they are virtually impossible to visualise. However, mathematically any extra dimensions (and I'm talking of spacial dimensions, not time) are described as being perpendicular to the previous dimension. You could theoretically have 4, 5, 100 or an infinity of dimensions. If 3 dimensions can be described as left/right, up/down and depth, you could get some idea of the 4th dimension by thinking in/out. The 5th dimension gets a bit beyond the brain's ability to conceive but would probably be in/out of the in/out (see what I mean). I have read accounts of NDE's where people decribed viewing 9 or 10 dimensional space (things within things within things within things etc.) but when they returned to their bodies, they lost the ability to visualise it. Anyway, putting physics to one side for the time being, I read a book once (can't remember which one) which came up with a metaphysical explanation for the physical world looking different during OBE. He said that, during OBE, we are not actually perceiving the physical world but a near carbon copy of the physical world. On the astral plane (as well as other planes, thought creates reality - you think it and it appears (instant karma). When an individual creates a thoughtform for the first time, it doesn't have a great deal of energy and will evapourate in time. So if you go out and create a boogyman with your thoughts, it will eventually dissolve if you give it no more thought. However, things that you think about all the time (such as the appearance of your bedroom) will be more concrete, although still subject to various disrepancies (because it's only you or your family that give power to the thoughtform). The more people who perceive something to be a certain way, the more concrete it will be and the less you will be able to change it with your own thoughts. The author said that this is why well known places public places are more concrete - there are numerous people who are giving energy to thought of it being the way it is. You might even go on to say that the physical world is only a conjured experience but appears concrete because there are billions of people who are giving energy to idea of how the world is - if there were no conscious observers, would the physical world cease to exist or dissolve over time? If a tree falls in the forrest and there's nobody there, does it make a sound? (had to throw that one in). As far as time travel during OBE is concerned, I also read a book where the author claimed he could do it. He said that, the further he went back in time, the dimmer everything appeared until, eventually, everything was grey and fog like. The further he travelled into the future, the brighter everything appeared until, eventually, everything was too bright to perceive - just bright white light. I have no idea whether this is true and, despite the length of this thread, nobody has really said that they regularly time travel during OBE (or how to do it). It's all just theory. I personally do not believe that you can travel back in time and alter things in the physical universe. You may be able to travel back in time (during OBE) and observe things, but not alter things (apart from maybe communicating with others in the past who are also OBE'ing - I don't know about that). The Universe (physical and non physical) operates according to laws which cannot be broken. We may not know what all those laws are but they are there (waiting to be discovered and understood). You don't have to understand or believe in gravity to die from jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Things may not always make sense but that's only because you don't understand the laws governing them and, if it appears that a law has been broken then that's only because you don't know of all the laws yet. If God or whatever created the Universe, it knows more than you can even conceive of knowing (at this stage) and it would not create loopholes which would allow the entire Universe to unravel. Einstein could never accept quantum theory because he thought it challenges the idea of an ordered Universe, but that's only because he (as brilliant as he was) didn't understand the bigger picture and didn't understand that there may be further discoveries made that will tie everything in together. After relativity , he spent the remainder of his life unsuccessfully trying to come up with the grand unification theory. However, I believe he was right when he said "God does not play dice with the Universe". Shane Marsh ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news2.melbpc.org.au!not-for-mail From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 23:55:38 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 28 Message-ID: <357b31d9.3976697@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> NNTP-Posting-Host: b2-40.melbpc.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:52:17 +1000, "Shane Marsh" wrote: < snip > >You're correct in stating that the speed of light is the same for everyone, >regardless of their motions or the motions of the source of light (ie. 2 >cars travelling towards each other at the speed of light does not equal 2 >times the speed of light). According to Einstein, < snip > Let's see, two cars converging at 1MPH = 2MPH closing rate. two cars converging at 1x speed of light does not = 2x speed of light closing rate. Other than saying "Einstein said" do you have anything else to support this theory ? Regards, John. **************************************************** ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!europa.clark.net!192.148.253.68!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 00:31:52 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 67 Message-ID: <357782C8.2B79@mcleodusa.net> References: <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <3571b35c.43936133@news.eunet.no> <6kss1h$lc2$1@gte2.gte.net> <3572e21c.36647012@news.eunet.no> <35758E83.69C1@mcleodusa.net> <6l54pu$8ld$2@gte1.gte.net> <357a2f37.3302358@news.melbpc.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-151.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) John Fitzsimons wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:41:23 -0400, Trish Pike > wrote: > > < snip > > > >themissinglink wrote: > > >> A lot is related to the fact that we must rise in our vibrational levels > >> so that they will not have to come down as far in their vibrational > >> state to communicate; if you understand what I am saying. The more we > >> can ascend, the easier the communication will come for us. > > Only if one wants "positive" spirit communication/awareness. One does > not need to "ascend" when OOB for example to be aware of "earthbound" > entities. > > >> That is why > >> it helps to go into the deep changes of our diet, of our meditation, of > >> colonics and other aspects of the cleansing of the physical, soul and > >> spirit..... so that our level of living, our personal vibrational state, > >> will go up much higher. The only reason we do not see those in the realm > >> of spirit is purely because of their vibrational state, the level they > >> are abiding on. And of course, there are many abiding places, grosser > >> states of many dwelling in spirit regions even as we witness the same > >> variations on this earthly side. So the ease with which some gravitate > >> to lower or higher entities would have to be figured in here. > > I agree that one can do things in the physical world to "raise our > vibrations" but it should also be remembered that everyone has a > "natural" level of vibratory rate that results in their ease in > reaching that level while OOB. > > > What you say sounds good, in theory, but I'm not too sure about it. There are so > >many different varieties of people who are able to have OBEs, all coming from > >different spiritual places. An atheist can have an OBE, but a spiritual leader may > >not have a clue. I'm a firm believer that anyone who is willing to dedicate the time and > >effort, will be able to have one eventually. But I think it may have more to do with > >determination and patience rather than spirituality. At least with me, it doesn't > >account for my personal success .. because I'm not much of a spiritual person at all. > > From my reading of both your posts it seems that you may be both > talking about different things. Themissinglink seems to be talking > about where one goes while OOB while you are talking about the ability > to go OOB. > > I agree with both points of view to a degree, particularly yours. > Being able to go OOB has little to do with spirituality. Most psychic > abilities have nothing to do with spirituality. I ABSOLUTELY agree with you in that psychic is a soulish and natural capacity.... and you are quite right in surmising my comments in terms of "where" one chooses to travel or abide while OOB. As to spirituality... it is the privilege and open door of our limitless evolution, and thereby merited inclusion as an indicator of certain phenomena. I really appreciate your articulate and concise discernment, John... nice mingling with you. Blessings... > > Regards, John. > > **************************************************** > ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. > / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 > \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm > v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ > ###### Message-ID: <35778688.6231@bmis.com.au> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 13:47:52 +0800 From: Keith Alderslade Organization: Business Management Information Systems (BMIS) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; AIX 2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.135.120.34 X-Trace: 5 Jun 1998 05:48:51 GMT, 202.135.120.34 Lines: 21 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: or otherwise violate the IBM.NET Terms of Service X-Notice: should be forwarded in their entirety to postmaster@ibm.net Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!202.135.120.34 Shane Marsh wrote: >If you were travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light, the sun would >appear only 4 million miles from Earth and you would reach it in 22 >seconds. You would think that the astronaut would look back the Earth and >see things moving at 22 times normal speed but just the opposite is >true - the Earth would appear to be moving 22 times slower than normal >- both the astronaut and the observer on Earth would be observing each >other moving 22 times slower relative to themselves ....... You seem to be saying that from Earth I would see the spaceship appearing to move 22 times slower than myself. Am I correct? If so then a spaceship accelerating from 0 to C would first appear to be getting faster (simple observation) then at some time it would appear to slow down (to get to 22 times slower then myself). This would appear to have obvious flaws - such as the same apparent motion for 2 different speeds. Can you correct me on all this? Thanks, Keith ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <35723484.CB6061EF@soundsculpture.com> <3572ea96.38817164@news.eunet.no> <3576127a.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3577535F.A0D3FD56@soundsculpture.com> <3577f0c5.0@139.134.5.33> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 18:53:19 +0200 Lines: 64 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t6o204p43.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t6o204p43.telia.com Message-ID: <35782236.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t6o204p43.telia.com The research I have heard about on loss of weight on death was done about 100 years ago, at least a very long time ago. But I'm sure there must be more experiments done on this the last decade. But I don't know of any. And yes, doing experiments on this is quite difficult... So doing it on OBE experiments would be a lot easier, and as far as I know the Monroe Institute have done exactly that. It was in some post that I can't seem to find that someone told that the Monroe Institute had done this research and found that we loose 3 ounces. I have sent a mail to the Monroe Institute to verify this. So we just have to wait.... As far as I can tell there is some mass in our body that is transferred to energy and leaves the body.... But I would like more info on this. Shane Marsh wrote in message <3577f0c5.0@139.134.5.33>... > >Ken wrote in message <3577535F.A0D3FD56@soundsculpture.com>... > > > >>> So our soul weights 3 ounces/85 grams.... >> >>The evidence that the body loses weight when it dies is very weak. I >>think there may have been 1 or 2 experiments done with very inprecise >>scales years ago. I would take this loss of weight thing with a grain >>of salt. I am not saying it needs to be discounted, only that there >>really hasn't been any modern controlled experiment to determine if >>there is a change in weight during death. I would love to see some >>serious research in this area as it would clear up a lot of things. >> >>Ken > > >I agree. The evidence is not that strong. There could be some loss of weight >at death due to escaping gases, although I don't know whether it would weigh >85 grams. However, any experiment done to look at this would have to be done >within a sealed unit (oxygen supply and all) on top of very precise scales >to rule out the escaping gases explanation. They would have to get the >permission of the dying person for this (or relatives if the dying person >was unconscious). I can't imagine that being the subject of such an >experiment would be terribly pleasant and the last thing I would be thinking >about if I was on my deathbed would be taking part in this type of >experiment. They can have my organs after I'm dead but I'd prefer to die >peacefully and comfortably, not feeling like a lab rat with guys in white >coats hanging around, eagerly anticipating my death. > >Shane Marsh > > ###### From: "Shane Marsh" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> <35776817.7E9D176B@soundsculpture.com> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 20:32:53 +1000 Lines: 17 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.35 Message-ID: <3577f0c1.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.35 Thanks Ken Shane Marsh Ken wrote in message <35776817.7E9D176B@soundsculpture.com>... >Shane Marsh wrote: >> >> Hi > >> Shane Marsh > >Excellent post Shane, thanks. > >Ken > ###### From: "Shane Marsh" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> <3576dcb4.0@d2o204.telia.com> <35776A7C.F537E193@soundsculpture.com> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:01:01 +1000 Lines: 46 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.35 Message-ID: <3577f0c3.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.cs.utwente.nl!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.35 Hi Lars Ken wrote in message <35776A7C.F537E193@soundsculpture.com>... >Lars Rune Foleide wrote: >> >> I'm glad that you decided to join us. >> I enjoyed your post a lot. >> >> But you are maybe wrong on one point. >> I just asked my dad, who had a university education >> in physics and has been a teacher most of his life. I >> ask him some questions about Einstein, and he told >> me that if you travel at the speed of light and return >> the clocks would be in sync again. >> > >Lars, Shanes post on this was completely accurate. The clocks indeed >would show different times. If you get a chance pick up a book (now out >of print I believe but probably available at the library) called "The >Universe and Dr. Einstein" by Lincoln Barnett. It's the most concise >practical and pleasant read on Einsteins theories I've ever seen. Also >I've seen a NG dedicated to Einsteins theories. I think its >alt.physics.relativity or something like that. But do get the book. >You will really enjoy it. It's better than fiction. And I guarantee >you will read it more than once. > >Ken Yes, the truth is indeed stranger and better than fiction. There's also book called "Einstein's Universe" by Nigel Calder which gives a good layman's explanation of relativity - a TV series was based on this book and it should still be in print (check http://www.amazon.com ). Also, there's a few books by Paul Davies ("Other Worlds", "God and the new physics" and "The matter myth") which are just as good but also go into quantum theory and other related theories. Stephen Hawking's "A brief history of time" is also worth a look. These books will blow your mind and you'll gain a new appreciation of just how incredible the Universe really is and the unfathomable intelligence behind it all (but don't get so caught up in the physical Universe that you lose interest in OBE). Shane Marsh ###### From: "Shane Marsh" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> <35778688.6231@bmis.com.au> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:47:55 +1000 Lines: 66 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.35 Message-ID: <3577f0c4.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.35 Hi Keith Keith Alderslade wrote in message <35778688.6231@bmis.com.au>... >Shane Marsh wrote: > > >>If you were travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light, the sun would >appear only 4 million miles from Earth and you would reach it in 22 >seconds. > You would think that the astronaut would look back the Earth and >>see things moving at 22 times normal speed but just the opposite is >true - the Earth would appear to be moving 22 times slower than normal >- both the astronaut and the observer on Earth would be observing each >other moving 22 times slower relative to themselves ....... > >You seem to be saying that from Earth I would see the spaceship >appearing to move 22 times slower than myself. Am I correct? No, it's time that's slowing down, not motion. >If so then a spaceship accelerating from 0 to C would first appear to be >getting faster (simple observation) then at some time it would appear to >slow down (to get to 22 times slower then myself). See above - time is not the same as motion. The Earth observer would still see the rocket ship moving very fast but he would see time on the rocket ship as slowed down. A 2 second sneeze to the astronaut would look like a 44 second sneeze to the Earth observer. >This would appear to have obvious flaws - such as the same apparent >motion for 2 different speeds. > >Can you correct me on all this? > >Thanks, >Keith > The thing with relativity is that it is just that - relative to the observer. In my example (and actually, it's an example from Paul Davies' book "Other worlds"), I said that the Earth observer was standing still and the astronaut was moving away at high speed. However, it's just as valid to say that the astronaut is standing still and the Earth is moving away at high speed. So who's moving and who's standing still? The answer is there is no answer - there is no absolute reference to judge things by. The only constant is the speed of light - everything else becomes distorted and that distortion depends on who the observer is. Both the astronaut and the Earth observer would view each other's time as slowing down. On the face of it, this appears to be inconsistent but it's not because both would disagree greatly on who is right regarding who's spacetime is distorting. Each thinks that they are normal and it's the other guy who's doing strange tricks with time and space. The astronaut thinks that the sun is only 4 million miles away but the Earth observer thinks the sun is 93 million miles away. Both are right simultaneously because it all depends on their frame of reference (and their frames of reference are not equal). Hope I haven't confused you here. It's a difficult thing to explain within the confines of a few paragraphs but, if you're interested, I've listed a few good books in another one of my replies. Shane Marsh ###### From: "Shane Marsh" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <356d0238.1916937@news.zip.com.au> <356d9faf.9274580@news.eunet.no> <356E0964.2491B2C2@sk.sympatico.ca> <6km5km$3hg$1@gte1.gte.net> <356ef7c2.1918191@news.eunet.no> <6knlrr$6b1$1@gte1.gte.net> <35704708.40605732@news.eunet.no> <6krvfb$39e$1@gte2.gte.net> <35723484.CB6061EF@soundsculpture.com> <3572ea96.38817164@news.eunet.no> <3576127a.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3577535F.A0D3FD56@soundsculpture.com> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:42:27 +1000 Lines: 34 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.35 Message-ID: <3577f0c5.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.35 Ken wrote in message <3577535F.A0D3FD56@soundsculpture.com>... >> So our soul weights 3 ounces/85 grams.... > >The evidence that the body loses weight when it dies is very weak. I >think there may have been 1 or 2 experiments done with very inprecise >scales years ago. I would take this loss of weight thing with a grain >of salt. I am not saying it needs to be discounted, only that there >really hasn't been any modern controlled experiment to determine if >there is a change in weight during death. I would love to see some >serious research in this area as it would clear up a lot of things. > >Ken I agree. The evidence is not that strong. There could be some loss of weight at death due to escaping gases, although I don't know whether it would weigh 85 grams. However, any experiment done to look at this would have to be done within a sealed unit (oxygen supply and all) on top of very precise scales to rule out the escaping gases explanation. They would have to get the permission of the dying person for this (or relatives if the dying person was unconscious). I can't imagine that being the subject of such an experiment would be terribly pleasant and the last thing I would be thinking about if I was on my deathbed would be taking part in this type of experiment. They can have my organs after I'm dead but I'd prefer to die peacefully and comfortably, not feeling like a lab rat with guys in white coats hanging around, eagerly anticipating my death. Shane Marsh ###### From: "Shane Marsh" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <1998052613053500.JAA05546@ladder03.news.aol.com> <356B9311.BAE17FEC@eden.com> <356b8e8e.483779@news.zip.com.au> <356C66A3.138C268C@eden.com> <356C9CA1.46F7915E@sk.sympatico.ca> <3575b12b.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3575E0DE.C1BC9202@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <35761eb3.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3576a7c7.0@139.134.5.33> <357b31d9.3976697@news.melbpc.org.au> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:52:44 +1000 Lines: 56 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.35 Message-ID: <3577f0c8.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.35 Hi John >>You're correct in stating that the speed of light is the same for everyone, >>regardless of their motions or the motions of the source of light (ie. 2 >>cars travelling towards each other at the speed of light does not equal 2 >>times the speed of light). According to Einstein, > >< snip > > >Let's see, two cars converging at 1MPH = 2MPH closing rate. > two cars converging at 1x speed of light does not = 2x >speed of light closing rate. > >Other than saying "Einstein said" do you have anything else to support >this theory ? As Ken said, there have been countless experiments that have proven Einstein's ideas to be correct. I can understand why you think that the above doesn't make sense - it doesn't appear to be consistent with common sense. That's because we're used to seeing the world at normal day to day speeds, so 2 cars travelling towards each other at 1mph would look like they're converging at a rate of 2mph. Although it's not technically correct, the effects of relativity at these low speeds is so infinitesimally small that you may as well disregard them (there are no devices on Earth that would be sensitive enough to measure the distortion of spacetime at these low speeds anyway). However, at higher speeds, the effects of distorted spacetime become more obvious and measurable. If you're interested, there are a few good books around (and probably a few web sites as well) that will go into a bit more depth in explaining the how's and why's of relativity. And if you think relativity is bizarre, you ought to take a look at quantum theory (which has also been proven over and over again to be true despite the fact that it challenges common sense). Shane Marsh > >Regards, John. > > **************************************************** > ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. > / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 > \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm > v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ > > > ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <358d0cb6.0@d2o204.telia.com> <1998062200150300.UAA06891@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6mkbrc$hrh$2@news-2.news> <358e40cb.0@d2o204.telia.com> <358f9b7a.0@139.134.5.33> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:00:10 +0200 Lines: 40 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p25.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p25.telia.com Message-ID: <358fa678.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t8o204p25.telia.com Shane wrote in message <358f9b7a.0@139.134.5.33>... >Lars Rune Foleide wrote in message <358e40cb.0@d2o204.telia.com>... > >>But don't worry, you can't get virus from a web-site.... >>You need to download the virus and run it on you computer... >>And that can't be done just by browsing the web.... > >Heard of Java and ActiveX? There are some people who enjoy coding >hostile Java applets and Active X controls. They're not viruses >(because they don't self-replicate), but they could be considered to >be trojan horses. I don't know of any that can wipe your system out >but there are some that can crash your system and it seems that people >are always discovering new security holes in IE and Navigator. > >The Web is just like real life in the sense that, if you go down dark >alleys then you're more likely to run into someone or something nasty. >However, having said that, you can't get a virus or a Trojan horse >from plain text email. Just don't click on an email attachment that >contains an executable file i.e.. *.exe, *.com, *.bat etc. unless >it's from someone you trust. > >Shane > Most ways to crash a system is security holes or bugs.... But these are usually fixed pretty fast.... I have a GIF-file that will crash Netscape :) Having that said, I don't think you should worry much about running into things that can crash your system..... It has never happened to me..... But there is maybe a slight possibility that it might happen.... Cheers, Lars ###### From: "Shane" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <358d0cb6.0@d2o204.telia.com> <1998062200150300.UAA06891@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6mkbrc$hrh$2@news-2.news> <358e40cb.0@d2o204.telia.com> Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:06:49 +1000 Lines: 27 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.53 Message-ID: <358f9b7a.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!fci-se!fci!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.53 Lars Rune Foleide wrote in message <358e40cb.0@d2o204.telia.com>... >But don't worry, you can't get virus from a web-site.... >You need to download the virus and run it on you computer... >And that can't be done just by browsing the web.... Heard of Java and ActiveX? There are some people who enjoy coding hostile Java applets and Active X controls. They're not viruses (because they don't self-replicate), but they could be considered to be trojan horses. I don't know of any that can wipe your system out but there are some that can crash your system and it seems that people are always discovering new security holes in IE and Navigator. The Web is just like real life in the sense that, if you go down dark alleys then you're more likely to run into someone or something nasty. However, having said that, you can't get a virus or a trojan horse from plain text email. Just don't click on an email attachment that contains an executable file ie. *.exe, *.com, *.bat etc. unless it's from someone you trust. Shane ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!newsfeed.ecrc.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: mpfc@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:06:30 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 19 Message-ID: <6n0v05$t3b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <358dd1ed.0@diana.idirect.com> <1998062212151901.IAA00808@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.156.33.82 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jun 26 20:06:30 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT) In article <1998062212151901.IAA00808@ladder03.news.aol.com>, silkdick@aol.com (Silk Dick) wrote: > > In article <358dd1ed.0@diana.idirect.com>, "mpfc" writes: > > >Here's an idea.. why don't we forward his email address/web site URL to some > >kind of international spamming agency and get them to distribute his email > >address to thousands of spammers around the world... hmmm ? > > interesting idea, but I'm not sure the aol address is for real. Thats what stopped me from even trying.... Regards, Steve -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE and Time travel Date: 01 Jul 1998 01:40:08 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <358d0cb6.0@d2o204.telia.com> <1998062200150300.UAA06891@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6mkbrc$hrh$2@news-2.news> <358e40cb.0@d2o204.telia.com> <358f9b7a.0@139.134.5.33> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "Shane" writes: > Lars Rune Foleide wrote in message <358e40cb.0@d2o204.telia.com>... > >But don't worry, you can't get virus from a web-site.... > >You need to download the virus and run it on you computer... > >And that can't be done just by browsing the web.... > Heard of Java and ActiveX? There are some people who enjoy coding > hostile Java applets and Active X controls. They're not viruses > (because they don't self-replicate), but they could be considered to > be trojan horses. I don't know of any that can wipe your system out ActiveX can do _anything_ to your sytem _any_ program can do. Including reformating your harddisk, or even worse subtly modifying data on it. If you use Quicken or Money and have telebanking enabled AxtiveX can even have them thansfer your bank account to someone elses. Java has some restrictions, but I don't trust them. And if you use an Microsoft system (or anything else with OLE2 and Office) you can automatically download and display Word .DOC files which may contain Macroviruses. > but there are some that can crash your system and it seems that people > are always discovering new security holes in IE and Navigator. Crashing is the easiest, most spectacular, but ultimatively most harmless form of security breach. Sabotage is the real McCoy. The best you can do is unconditionally switch ActiveX and Java off, and also JavaScript for good measure. > The Web is just like real life in the sense that, if you go down dark > alleys then you're more likely to run into someone or something nasty. > However, having said that, you can't get a virus or a trojan horse > from plain text email. Just don't click on an email attachment that > contains an executable file ie. *.exe, *.com, *.bat etc. unless > it's from someone you trust. Or any Web link pointing to one. Or any *.class (Java). Or far worse: any normal HTML page containing any of above embedded. For a good (and not dangerous) demonstration (made by professional security staff, to alert users) of Web based nuking of your computer try http://www.digicrime.com/. But save all open files before going there, you will need to reboot to stop some of the nasties there. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you